these industries. they're going to look back at this moment, children alive to today, and they're going to just wonder what were they thinking, that every car is coming in from china, into every country in the world, and eventually our barriers will come down too, because we won't be able to compete. it's just a sad commentary on the senate of today, that they will acquiesce to such a pathetic concession made to the oil industry in our nation, but it's a perfect example of the outsized influence that it is now playing in our society. when trump promised them last april if they gave him a billion dollars he'd do away with all of the clean energy technologies in our country, he's paying them off right now. there's no transition plan. there's no promise that maybe we'll help the auto industry so they can catch up to the chinese.

no, they're just going to cede the field. ultimately, it will be the next generations that pay the price. so with that, mr. president, i yield back. short-circuitshort-circuit. . republican numbers don't know what to do. they can hand donald trump a wi. republicans are stuck between their talking points if deficits and the obligation to do whatever donald trump tells them to do. last night the budget office

released a report and found this bill would increase the deficit by $2.3 trillion over the next decade. let me say that again, 2.3 trillion that would trigger automatic cuts to medicaid and other vital programs unless congress steps in and who benefits to the ceos of the richest 10% of americans would see it go up while the rest would would see the bears go down for this bill deserves a name and i would call it one big payout and while billionaire corporations are poised to win big the people i serve veterans students working families are set to lose. i'm offering 10 amendments to stop this. first it introduced an amendment that exempts disabled veterans from new medicaid work requirements not all veterans are eligible to receive their health care and 1.6 million veterans rely on medicaid. this bill would subject as many as 1 million of them to bureaucratic red tape just to

keep their health care. many veterans fall below what makes them eligible for va care. punishing them for that is not reform commits cruelty but the second if you're going to rip why veterans health care the least you can do is tell them. my amendment would require cms to notify veterans they are losing medicaid coverage. third i have offered a similar amendment requiring usda to notify veterans and servicemembers. over 1 million veterans rely on food assistance in this bill takes from those who have served and give to those who stocks do well without sacrifice. fourth and fifth i opposed creating web sites to help veterans navigate the fallout and health care nutrition resources for those losing coverage. it's a modest effort to clean up the. six i'm offering an amendment to preserve nursing homes staffing

reforms. in 2024 cms finalized a rule to address the dangers understaffing. this bill delays that they could cost lives. university of california -- the university pennsylvania research estimates 13,000 lives would be saved annually under that rule. who exactly are we protecting by delaying that? certainly not the seniors living in those homes. i 7 amendment strikes to repeal of the 2023 defense role of protection for student borrowers defrauded by colleges but a one-year over 770,000 students filed claims for this bill would make it nearly impossible for future victims to get relief. a come i strike the repeal of the 9010 rule of bipartisan protection that keeps for-profit colleges from targeting. without it g.i. recipients become cash for taxpayers footing the bill in the schools

when they collapse. nina proposed a certified no harm amendment which would simply require federal agencies to confirm that these provisions won't increase private and student veterans before they take effect. republicans are so confident this bill won't hurt anyone it should be an easy yes and finally my 10th amendment includes a pretext insect codifying essential safeguards against marketing inflated job claims and outright fraud on per -- for-profit schools. i remind my colleagues this is a routine budget bill. this is reverse robinhood. it steals health care for veterans and steals food from hungry families in steals loan protections for students and in steel safety from nursing home residents. it does all that to give billionaires a payday for the price take up $2.3 trillion of new debt. this is about values it's about trying to give a twice impeached former president a talking point for his next rally.

i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reject the sham of a bill. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. carson. >> the thank you very much madam chair and thank you ranking member and thank you for providing me time to testify this afternoon. i have four amendments to this reconciliation bill. my amendments protect medicaid passenger rail our environment and would protect the middle class. i first want to speak on amendment for 28 to conduct a conference of audit within 180 days to assess the impact of this bill, its impact on income inequality in our country. the gop claims their tax policies will benefit the middle class. i say prove it. prove to the american people to tax policies in this bill will help the middle-class and not the ultra-wealthy. next my amendment 168 addresses one of the most urgent

life-threatening issues in this bill which is that this bill would/health care for 14 million americans. just this afternoon and indianapolis woman named joan contacted our office. she's about to turn 65 is disabled and she receives medicaid to survive. she told me at 65 years old i have nowhere else to go and i don't want to lose my home. i don't want to lose my health care. yesterday i spoke on the house floor about three women from my district erik, bethany and carol and company who relies on in medicaid to survive. those are just three of the thousands of people who have reached out to us in the past few weeks. we have received messages from folks every day who are afraid for themselves and they are terrified for their children and other people's children, their

family members other people's family members. that's because indianapolis is the community that cares about one another. we look out for one another. it's who we are. i'm always proud of my hometown and i'm even more proud of the groundswell of support especially over the last week from those in indianapolis who have overwhelmingly told me we must help our neighbors and we must protect medicaid. i'm here today to fight for the people of indianapolis who deserve a government that stands with them and not billionaires. this past week our country has watched members of congress decide essentially who deserve to live and who deserves to die in her country. for millions health care in medicaid cuts are not a political discussion they are a matter of life and death but 14 million americans would lose health care under this current bill. that includes newborns,

children, seniors and postpartum mothers the most vulnerable among us. also republican members of congress denied this bill will/medicaid even though the nonpartisan analysis found that the republican budget simply would not be possible without cutting medicaid and essential health care. and yet many of my colleagues still denied that this budget would drastically cut essential health care so my message to my colleagues is prove it. you insist your bill will not hurt medicaid you insist this bill will not health care under the hands of 14 million men women and children prove it by passing my amendment. my amendment would ensure that the provisions of this bill will take affect if there is an increase in mortality rates due to reduced access to health care

services as a result of this bill. if republicans truly believe this bill is not taking money away from medicaid to give tax breaks to billionaires than they should have no problem passing this amendment. republicans believe that at a minimum we should make sure this bill does not cause americans to die then they shouldn't have a problem passing my amendment. i'd like to close my remarks madam chair and ranking member by reminding us again of john, erik, bethany and carol anne i consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: so, mr. president, i want to be very clear about what is about to happen tonight here on the floor of the senate. tonight in order to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry, republicans will erode away at the senate and undermine this institution they claim to

care about. by weaponizing the cra, republicans tonight cross a point of no return for the senate, expanding what this chamber can do with a majority threshold. this from the very party that professes to care about the rules and norms and precedents of this institution. to override the parliamentarian and to use the cra in the way that republicans propose is going nuclear. no ifs, no ands, no buts, it is going nuclear. don't take my word for it. this comes from leader thune himself. he was asked a few months ago about this very scenario of overriding the parliamentarian. and he said this. quote, yeah, and that's totally akin to killing the filibuster. we can't go there. people need to understand that, unquote. but unfortunately we are going there, it seems. and just yesterday he admitted that this step could, quote,

create precedent for the future, unquote. so apparently when the rules suit the republicans, they will preach about protecting them. but now that the rules are inconvenient, when they stand in the way of their ideological goals, republicans will say away with them. make no mistake, this is a narrow -- this is not a narrow assertion of congressional authority as the other side claims. this is an aggressive new precedent. moving forward congressional review acts likely be weaponized to bold new levels. today it's all about california emission waivers. but tomorrow the cra could now be used to erase any policy from an agency that the trump administration doesn't like with a simple majority threshold. they could eliminate health care innovation waive theirs assist patients on medicaid and aca

with a simple majority therebihold. they could use cra's to make it harder to form a union. they could go after agency actions that protect access to reproductive care, like making it harder to access the medication mifepristone. all of this and more could now be done at a simple majority threshold with an expanded cra. this, in other words, is a backdoor strategy from republicans to make project 2025 a reality. it is the legislative branch ceding its authority over to the executive, which will now slap the, quote, cra, unquote, label on a whole host of policies and get congress to rubber stamp their repeals. republicans should tread very carefully today. what goes around comes around. if republicans are willing to overrule the parliamentarian and hijack the cra in a way it has

never been used before, they will not like it during this session of congress and certainly next time when they are in the minority. so this is a sad, shameful, disappointing day for the u.s. senate. republicans i am certain will come to regret the ill-considered step they take tonight. now, i have a parliamentary inquiry. is the chair familiar with section 802-d-1 of the congressional review act which states that, quote, all points of order against the joint resolution and against consideration of the joint resolution are waived, unquote? the presiding officer: yes. mr. schumer: thank you, madam chair. you have made the case that this is nuclear. i yield the floor.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

it undercuts the whole argument so thank you for thinking about that. thank you. ms. fernandez. >> thank you. i thank you very much. i think a lot of what we have been talking about today is what is fair, what is right for the american people, how we build that trust and how what we are seeing in this bill is this big transfer, the favoritism to the wealthy. it's prioritizing them over the hungry kids in the classroom over the families who need that assistance to that health care premium the affordable care act.

americans love the affordable care act and one of the ways they suggest we do the we're facing a novel situation here in the senate. and for the sake of my democrat colleagues who seem more than little confused as to what's going on here, let me just review the situation. we have received from the house joint resolutions of disapproval that meet all the statutory requirements under chapter 8, title 5 of the u.s. code, the congressional review act. in the past, the senate has treated any such joint resolution as being george bush for expedited floor consideration procedures prescribed under the congressional review act. but here's the twist, madam president. senate democrats claim that we can't consider these resolutions under these congressional review act procedures because the rules addressed in the resolutions in question are not in fact rules.

now, the rules in question -- the california waiver rules -- were submitted to congress' rules, which has always been all the senate needed for consideration under the congressional review act. and they are clearly rules in substance given their nationwide impact and scope. but in an unprecedented move, the government accountability office has inserted itself into the situation and declared that these rules submitted to congress by the epa has rules are not in fact rules. now, madam president, for years the senate has turned to the government accountability office, the gao, to determine if something not submitted by an agency is actually a rule that should have been submitted to congress as such. that's not part of the congressional review act's statute, but the senate has relied onned gao for this -- relied on gao for this to prevent agencies from flouting the law.

in other words, gao has acted as a fail-safe to ensure congress's rights are protected from encroachment by the executive branch. that is not the situation we find ourselves in today. in fact, it's the inverse. the situation we're facing today is an agency submitting to the senate actions that the agency says are rules and gao, for the first time in history, inserting itself into the situation and offering its own opinion that the rules in question are not in fact rules. well, so what do we do about this? i believe that when the senate is facing a novel situation like this one with disagreement among its members, it is appropriate for the senate to speak as a body to the question. something the senate does when questions over applications of rules arise. for example, just last year a republican member of the senate brought a resolution to the floor under a fast-track

procedure -- the war powers act -- and a democrat member of the senate argued that it was not entitled to those procedures. he then made a point of order to that fact and the chair submitted the question to the senate and the senate voted on what qualifies for that fast-track procedure. that is what we are doing today. nobody at the time cried nuclear. nobody said the democrat member was blowing up the senate. in fact, most members probably don't even remember the situation. because it was just the senate doing what the senate is supposed to do, and that's voting on how ply the rules when -- apply the rules when faced with a new situation. madam president, i think at this point it should be abundantly clear what we're doing has nothing to do with the legislative filibuster. but while i'd love to think that reality would prevail, i fully expect democrats to continue to misrepresent the situation. and i think there are probably

multiple reasons for that. one is that i think a lot of democrats support an electric vehicle mandate and are perma permanently happy to allow california to set an e.v. mandate for the whole country. you think they're frantic at the prospect of losing this green new deal policy. and, two, i suspect democrats are trying to use this situation as cover to justify abolishing the filibuster next time they're in charge. i think they think that they can make dismantling the senate filibuster a lot more palatable by claiming, however mendaciously, that republicans attacked it first. madam president, i would love to believe -- i would love to believe the democrats have suddenly come to the realization of the importance of the legislative filibuster, no matter how misplaced their concerns would be in this particular instance.

i think there is perhaps no senate rule today that does more to preserve the character of the senate as developed by our founders. and there's nothing i would like more than to see democrats recognize this. but despite the ranking hypocrisy, the senate have displayed by embracing the use of the filibuster this congress repeatedly after campaigning to overturn it mere months ago, i suspect that their newfound enthusiasm for the filibuster is situational only, something to be used when it helps them and to be destroyed when it doesn't. as i said, i strongly suspect they are attempting to use the situation as cover for destroying the filibuster the next time they're in power. hence, the misrepresentations and hysteria. madam president, i can't control

the democrats will do the next time they take majority here in the senate. although, if they attempt to abolish the filibuster and destroy the institution of the senate, i can safely promise to fight them on it tooth and nail. but i can say this -- while republicans are in charge, the legislative filibuster will remain in place. and you can take that to the bank. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: is it true -- parliamentary inquiry, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator will state his inquiry. mr. schumer: i hope our leader will listen because it is exactly cleefrment i with a with a to repeat what we said

yesterday. is it true what i said yesterday that the parliamentarian advised leadership offices that the joint resolution of disapproval regarding the california waivers issue do not qualify, do not qualify, for expedited consideration under the congre congressional review act? the presiding officer: the parliamentarian has advised me that such advice was given. mr. schumer: thank you. it shows we are going nuclear, no matter what the leader says. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president, notwithstanding the majority leader's comments, the facts at heart here are quite simple. the waiver at issue is not a rule and was never a rule. 30 years of precedent and practice at epa and in this body prove that. so what the gao did here was not unprecedented. what was unprecedented was for

the house to send over a document claiming, falsely according to the parliamentarian, that the waiver is in fact a rule under the cra and to blame the gao or the parliamentarian for that is to mistake the referee from the player who committed the foul. the foul here is pretending that a waiver is a rule and both the gao and the parliamentarian independently blew the whistle on that foul. those are the facts. mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. thune: i yield back all time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. mr. thune: i make a point of order that points of order are in order under the congressional review act, given sections 802d-is 882-d-2 and 8823-d-4 are in conflict with peach other. the presiding officer: the

senate has previously considered this question. therefore, the the question under the provisions of rule 20, submits the question to the senate for its decision. shall points of order be in order under the congressional review act? mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. sure schumer i move to table the -- mr. schumer: i move to table the question submitted by the chair. and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet.

the clerk: blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins.

mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. the clerk: mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis. mr. daines.

ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mr. husted. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. justice. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy.

mr. kim. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. mccormick. mr. merkley. mrs. moody. mr. moran. mr. moreno. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch.

ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. has watched what happens when we choose in these amendments are about those choices. do we support parents or do we punish them? do we choose to lift students up or do we pull the ladder out from behind them? i want to urge my colleagues to support these amendments for the sake of americans for the sake of our families in this sake of children in the sake of students. we need to make education accessible by. funding students and thank you for the time and i yield back. >> you are recognized.

.. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- blumenthal, cortez masto, duckworth, durbin, gillibrand, hassan, klobuchar, murphy, murray, ossoff, padilla, schatz, schiff, schumer, welch, whitehouse, and wyden. mr. gallego, aye. senators voting in the negative -- barrasso, budd, capito, cotton, needs of the big groups republicans claim they want to protect. i doubt they will because the only way to claim $800 billion in savings is to get people like kristine is a single mom and my district and many others off

their coverage. just take a second to think about what this means in a person's life. not just a line item on a spreadsheet. kristine is a single mom doing everything she can to support her two kids. she has been interviewing for jobs but has trouble to land full-time work. in the meantime medicaid is how she keeps her family.

the clerk: mr. kim, aye. mr. cornyn, no. strengthening our cyber defense as a trump administration is guiding them and turning a blind eye to basic security protocols.

we cannot allow sensitive data, or public safety systems to be compromised because this administration refuses to take cybersecurity seriously. so, let's be clear both of my memos protect american families one defends her healthcare won their digital safety. if my republican colleagues truly care about protecting families they would vote yes. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. ms. brown you are recognized. >> thank you manager for the opportunity to speak on this amendment. my amendment would strike especially harsh provision and this bill that is rooted in cruelty, not policy for the simple straightforward amendment would strike the work requirement provision in this big bad ugly bill that lowers the age of what we call a dependent child from 18 comic to

seven. for 18 years old to seven years old. i am abundantly clear eight, nine, 10 -year-olds are no longer considered dependent children. where did this come from? why is this necessary? since when is a first grader not a dependent child? preventing families with children as young as seven from losing food assistance, that is what we are debating here. this is not about waste, fraud, or abuse and we all know it. it's the excuse, not the reason. i would like to invite the republicans on this panel to explain to me, to my colleagues into the american people how exactly does taking food away from struggling families with young children make this country safer, stronger, more secure,

healthy or even great again the republicans on the agriculture committee cannot answer that question. maybe that's because they did not bother to speak up when asked. my guess is you cannot answer that question either because the answer does not exist. there is no national security strategy that says hungry families are a path to stability in this country. there is no economic model that says kids going to bed with empty bellies will suddenly lead us to prosperity. the only reason for this provision is to put some cash in the bank's a republican can turn around and hand out tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country. right now snap rules allow parents and caregivers with kids under the age of 18 from flexibility they cannot meet at

the hour on month work requirement because they are raising a kid, caring for families, are stuck in a job with unpredictable hours, they don't lose access to food. this built changes that. basic benefits from that moment a child turns seven, seven. that's a cold calculated cut that target struggling families this provision would make this bill reckless. combined with cuts to family services at my democratic colleagues have been highlighting all day on all night it's not just irresponsible, it is-s cruel. this bill does not serve working americans. it punishes them. we do not own a yacht or fly on a private jet this built makes your life harder not easier, makema sure life worse not bettr gives you a shove down not a

hand up. this is a backwards out of touch policy that ignores the real lives of working families. these provisions ignore daily struggles parents face as they juggle low wage jobs, childcare gaps in unpredictable schedules just to keep food on the table. it is not encouraged to stability or self-sufficiency and punishes poverty and sends a dangerous message if you are struggling, you are on your own. i hope you will support my amendment and perhaps more importantly i hope you find it in you to really take the negative impact of this entire bill into consideration and vote no and with that madam chair i yield back. >> think it ms. brown. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.

[inaudible] >> thank you very much will try that again. thank you madame chairwoman and ranking member thank you 12 members of this committee your endurance of this last 17 hours. i urge the committee to make my amendments in order to take those mm to 50, 51 and 166 other than delving into the details on those amendments like to express a larger concern i call the big bloated borrowing bill. i want to talk about with this budget does to our children. at march i visited east san jose i read a favorite book giving treats her height never had a call girl sitting in the front asked what it is we do in congress to help kids like them? or i talk to her about school lunches. i talked to her about helping

her and her mom when they go to the doctor. i talked to her about when she has dreams to go to college, we can help her with what we call pell grants. no longer, notba this budget is approved of my colleagues are less 17 hours about what the proposed budget will differ children yesterday the urban institute issued a report revealing the requisition bill could cause 18.3 million children to lose their access to preschool meals. we don't many of those children will rely on that meal as their only and best source of nutrition. we also do children comprise 40% of the estimate 9.7 million americans will lose health insurance because of these cuts report dress revealed 9,014,000 children alone will lose their health insurance because the parents getting knocked out as a result of the work requirement or not being able to complete

the laborious of paperwork for that. you've heard all this in one form or another of my democratic colleagues are less 17 hours went to talk about witchery from republican colleagues i told you heard from samir colleagues quietly and caucus means only a few spoken in public. this is the most fiscally irresponsible budget in u.s. history. it will add, according to the cbo $479 billion to next year's deficit. i will add as well another $3 trillion to debt over the next 10 years. accelerating a rate of accumulating debt. that's not it is of course their opinion or my opinion it is the opinion of the market was just told us clearly last week moody's downgraded u.s. treasuries for the first time in my lifetime. based on its assessment of current fiscal proposals. tomorrow's wall street journal as already online if you went to check it out the week auction

for 20 year bond exacerbate worries about rising deficit that i'm coding, and washington. drove a sharp decline in stocks and bonds down jonestown more than 800 points on 30 year treasury bond yield to the highest level in two years. this fiscal responsibility we will be bring a parade of horrible three sherbet among them will be the fact it's going to cost more for americans to invest best and borrow because as we continue to squeeze out private sector borrowing will see those rates rise. in this case both are from a group they are correct we can be bipartisan about this. this is a colossally awful budget. we should be bipartisan supported kids as well our children another democratic republic they need all of us to get right for them. let me attempt to bring these two threats together in one bipartisan message. this budget will hurt our

children because not only are you cutting spending of our money for them, you are cutting spending you are spending their money for us in other words you're stealing our children's future when there is one reason inflicting so much pain and one reason only that is because donald trump has painted himself and all of you into a corner with a promise for 5 trillion-dollar tax cut that you do not know how to pay for and you cannot cut enough to pay for. billionaires will do very well. there will never forgive us collectively and her children should not either. recognized california. >> mr. chairman, ranking member, the hours late. we should at the marco polo award not for distance but rather for stamina.

we do find amendments and i'm going to be brief. these are amendments that are very important. very important american issue a about 50 miles of the men and women in uniform. less than 1% of americans serve in our armed forces. imagine a situation where a soldier stationed overseas, all the time he gets a phone call that his spouse has been arrested by ice and deported because he or she is undocumented. that is not the way we want to treat our soldiers or men and women in uniform. they make enough sacrifices were to have their spouses deported is unconscionable and un-american. my amendment would simply say secretary of homeland security may not use any funds into the

subtitle to remove an alien who is a spouse of a member of the armed forces on active duty. this is an important issue. i hope this committee will look upon it, an important issue for men and women in uniform. mr. chairman and ranking member the second amendment number 61 deals with immigration as well. the question is why would ice agents go to schools, elementary schools to enforce isa laws to deport individuals? why would you want to terrorize children? my amendment simply says none of the funds made available may be used to conduct an immigration enforcement action at an elementary school.

why in god's name would ice show up to an elementary school to threaten to deport children? mr. chairman it ranking member of the third number 64 deals with men and women who defend our country. homeland security officers at our borders at our ports of entry. what we ask is you respect their collective bargaining rights. my amendment says none of the funds made available by this title may be used to undermine or cancel any collective bargaining agreements covering an employee of the department of homeland security. and again here, mr. chairman ranking member we have individuals that sometimes work 16 hour shifts because it's so short in terms of personnel.

they deserve to be represented by a collective bargaining contract. mr. chairman ranking member, my next amendment number 2:30 we often say in this country all gave some and many made the ultimate sacrifice when we are honoring our veterans. again, less than 1% of americans actually serve our nation. a lot of our veterans go off and fight, come back with invisible wounds. and later on turn into ptsd and they get into trouble with the law. a lot of these veterans, green card holders when they join the military are promised they will

be american citizens when they are honorably discharged, such is not the case. veterans that take an oath to the united states of america veterans are ready to lay it all down make the ultimate sacrifice for our country and then they are deported because they are found guilty of a crime mr. chairman my bill simply says none of the funds made available may be used to remove from the united states a veteran who was honorably discharged unless an immigration judge has determined after weighing all equities that individual should be removed. all that i'm asking is, before you deport this veteran look at his whole history of service to our country.

and finally mr. chairman and ranking member, my final amendment essentially says no amount of money in this subtitle should be used or can be used to deport or remove an individual to a country other than the country of that individual's nationality or last habitual residence unless a removal order to that country is issued by immigration judge. >> the gentlest time is up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> think the gentleman. recognize ms. sanchez of california. >> and to begin by thanking the rules committee for the opportunity to offer amendments to this fluid false and frankly offensive bill. our tax code should create opportunity and fairness. this build is the exact opposite

of bottoms out the middle class and it strangles working families. it truly targets immigrant that are lawfully present in the united states and have been working there for years. that targets children simply because of their parents immigration status. this is not just misguided, it is cruel. the first provision i want to discuss is a promise to preserve taxpayer dollars from going toward undocumented immigrants. this bill does nothing to quote unquote remove taxpayer benefits for illegal immigrants. rendering the title of this section patently false and misleading. that's why i've submitted an agenda striking the undocumented immigrants are already in eligible for coverage under the affordable care act and medicare. what republicans are actually doing is taking a white health

coverage from legally present individuals who pay taxes and work in the country legally. this arty a five year bar before legally present noncitizen can purchase marketplace coverage target marketplace coverage, not given coverage. the reality is immigrants are subsidizing these premium tax credits and other federal programs like medicare for us-born people. they are paying more into the system than they are utilizing health coverage due to the hired uninsured rates and health utilization. this bill worsens the disparity. if we do not strike these sections we are only going to see more uncompensated care and more contagious disease evidence healthcare premiums as the doctor said earlier.

these are legally present asylum-seekers, refugees, humanitarian parolees, temporary protected status holders and dreamers. recipients have been in the country for decades and who will no longer have healthcare healte coverage under this bill. in california alone, temporary protected status holders contribute $235 million in federal taxes and 170 million in state and. in florida at temporary's protected status holders contribute $198 million in federal taxes and $113 million in state and local taxes. and if my republican colleagues are so concerned about government handouts, i want to point to them the newly established expedited resettlement pathway for south africans. that immigration pathway grants them access after 12 months of health insurance if they do not qualify for medicaid.

talk about a handout. if republicans are going to prohibit legally present individuals who have been contributing to our accounting for years and even decades from purchasing marketplace coverage. buying it with their own money out of their own pocket and you guys going to prohibit that? the hypocrisy of the republicans never fails to surprise me. my second amendment addresses the denial of the tax credit for a u.s. citizen children with one parent does not have a social security number. the child tax credit was created to help children providing essential support for food, clothing, shelter and childcare. it has been one of the most effective tools in reducing child poverty in the united states. this bill will strip that support the weight from 2 million u.s. citizen children simply because one of their parents and is not a citizen. this provision disproportionally

harms hispanic children. many in my district already pays higher poverty rates. nearly one in four hispanic children live in poverty that's three times the rate of white children. why are we denying these children a shot at a better life to give tax credits to billionaires who don't need it? this provision is cruel and unconstitutional punishing u.s. children for their parents immigration status violates equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. my eminently fixed this by ensuring this 2 million children still receive the benefits of the child tax credit they deserve and that their parents have paid into. republicans love to say promises made, promises kept. this is nothing to lower healthcare costs. the survivor triple negative breast cancer. medicaid helped her cover every surgery, every hospital stay,

every medication. she told me she could have died without medicaid coverage. too that insult to injury this bill gives a tax cut of $255,000 for the top .1%. that is unconscionable and i urge the committee to adopt my amendment and i yield back to cook the gentility ills back we recognize a gentleman from missouri mr. menendez. >> thank you and members of the rules committee for the opportunity to testify about my important amendment. to a republican bill that would harm far too many americans. i'm offering two unlimited 8201 the second is number 306. amendment number 201 strike section 4420 from this bill. section 44201 would make permanent the trump administration de facto aca repeal more expensive and less

accessible for so many of our constituents. the passage in 2010 republicans have attempted over 70 times to repeal or weaken the bill including efforts to weaken common sense protections against discrimination of those with pre-existing conditions like asthma or diabetes. or seeing another attempt by republicans who weaken the aea and create barriers to care for hard-working individuals and their families. our march 10 the trump administration issued the so-called marketplace integrity and affordability proposed rule. ironically this built rule would make healthcare less affordable and less accessible by raising premiums, cutting financial assistance and bureaucratic paperwork requirements. hard-working americans across the country will face significant premium hikes.

nearly $3 billion over the next several years and greater barriers when they tried to enroll on november 1. it's not just premiums that go up. out-of-pocket will rise by over 15% with higher the doctor bills, higher co-pays and more people delaying or skipping care simply because of cost. on top of that the rule lowered coverage standards ensures weaker plan that cover less care. even with flat premiums patients pay more out-of-pocket. so this is not just my opinion an internal analysis premium spikes market disruption. the administration has admitted that under this rule 2 million individuals will lose healthcare coverage in 2026. this rule is a direct attack on

the people at daca which is designed to protect. to target working families all income individuals and people with chronic conditions. this rule is not about integrity. it's about a exclusion we should not codify this harmful rule into law. we should stop but i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the second amendment i like to discuss today with strike this section of the bill that repeals and rescinds grant funding for reducing air pollution at schools and i have to repeat this fact. my second amendment would strike this section of this bill this republican bill that repeals or rescinds grant funding for reducing air pollution at schools, at schools. we have an administration that claims to be promoting an agenda that will make our nation and families healthier. as a father and a legislature there is nothing more important.

this motion to table is not agreed to. for the benefit of the senate, i would like to remind you that the question is, shall points of order be in order under the congressional review act. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. schumer: i raise a point of order that points of order are not in order under section 802d1 of the congressional review act. the presiding officer: a point of order is currently pending before the senate. it is not in order to have multiple points of order pending at the same time. therefore, the point of order is out of order. mr. schumer: i appeal the ruling of the chair, madam president. mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: republican leader. mr. thune: thank you, madam president. madam president, i move to table the appeal, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

they republican on energy and commerce committee vote against my amendment in our markup last week. meanwhile they are cutting medicaid for nearly 14 million people as i mentioned earlier dismantling critical agencies charged with protecting public health. i like my colleagues on the other side they also explained to me and the american people, how does this built maker children healthier? how in cutting these programs will our children breathe cleaner air? how does making children sick support american families? this should be common sense. it should be bipartisan. it should be easy to vote yes on my amendment and to preserve this vital program i appreciated yelled back because gentleman yields back.

>> it will cost more with tariffs to have this meeting. >> while i am i just want to say, everybody to thank you for being here thank you for your patience. i support all of your amendments. to this committee presenting the amendments you don't because i think they represented our values. and i said beginning of this hearing, the underlying bill doesn't represent my values that are values and so whatever we can do to help advance your amendment, we will do and i think i yield back. >> i and yes want to do particular the amendment going

back benefits when children based on the parents are and it's un-american. it's also violating the constitution. >> and i appreciate the commitment and thank you and i yield back. >> the gentle lady goes back and i now recognize the next person thank you very much and you know, i noticed you kind of said something that we ought are doing we keep hearing from republicans they did not like this bill and they whispered to us it. they are so terrified of trump, that they are not having the courage to actually vote no but we will see. we will see. we know with regards to the amendment proposed, with regards to immigration, i just wanted to seek unanimous consent to

entered into the record in article and defense run and as you know how the regarded military publication entitled and rancho great willingness to join the military. stations. >> without objection so ordered. >> in another article that i think agosto representative point there's a lot of different articles really come in women's me by you earlier but we cannotl talk enough that's why wanted you i yield back. but take time to acknowledge that this idea in immigrant the reason that you have to medicate, for everybody because, they are somehow giving the system, when they do not receive any federal dollars.

and indeed, the article that was week unanimous consent it just one of many, sooner on priorities on immigrants contribute greatly to the social security trust fund policy demonstrates mr. chairman, i seeking interest consent. >> stadiums ice map the data on the article. >> the date is april 23, 2025. >> without objection so ordered. >> thank you i things really important these recent articles because they shut the democrats under fusion are keep shows that if it weren't for immigrants, who pay taxes often don't receive the benefits, optional social security would be in deeper trouble than it already is in you look at that across the board over and over, and so i will introduce these articles

that i know that we want to move forward to be able to have these wonderful members coming coming these great things here these unique factors that you offering fact that we are ignoring our cybersecurity trunk laughing because i didn't even have to say right because people that we have made ourselves and morris is what he did in terms of opening abilities russia. and something you very much breaking those didn't know if you want to do anything else. >> it is the biggest line world immigrants take more from the system and the pandemic is taken is hard not even eligible for benefits and yet other americans of the reason why is waste promised and confront abuses

immigrants salt and sliced is committed to the fire and diviner country as of the amendments that out and strike those provisions between immigrants and barely pay into the system eligible for that it had. >> and in this article is like going start reading military articles using marbling country for us to discuss, the ideal of the country and constitution and that is something i think we need to remember that were dealing with tax bill cutting essential benefits they were wrapping it around elements that are undermining the ideals of

this country as a place where we create opportunity for everybody when your nativeborn from west virginia human immigrants you were married in and i would only suggest that maybe i can discuss it with you later the idea that it should be any families is not just a spouse but the children were married into the military without going to say something. >> adjustment going my colleagues to your point about cybersecurity coming and i was on homeland security the cybersecurity subcommittee, this was a bipartisan supported this is thing we should all be in agreement on for watching administration just mental be going and instead of having a strong

federal responsibility actually see about private and public sectors to critical infrastructure, we see the statement is valid reason. when they do not have the resources to sort appreciate the leadership on this issue in her amendment because is something that should have bipartisan support because it has historically had bipartisan support because an issue of national security and the fact that we can't agree on is amendment that everybody in the ministration especially when you're enabling people from doge to access the personal data of all americans lose faith in his three whether it's v-8 or the irs. we should have some level cybersecurity awareness and training for those individuals so i think congress woman leadership in this meant bipartisanship under support i think you for raising it as

well. >> thank you once again we don't hear republicans complained auditing the kind of transgressions that would normally have cried bipartisan outcry without mr. chairman i yield back. >> and now i recognize mr. scott. >> thank you mr. chairman and there are differences of opinion on different issues. many my friends are democrats and travel with them overseas we have different ideas about how to sail and is all the same problems of the are legitimate questions differences about how we would handle the issues but i can tell you somebody was in the room when there are telephones were dealing with the cybersecurity related issues, there is no breakdown on the cybersecurity right now, there's just not itself we never debate and differences of opinion and i can tell you this, that the administration is committed on cybersecurity believe the

previous was on cybersecurity. i just wealth just we have differences that agreements is another think that is a once that i think that accusation is somebody was in the room very much thank you. >> made a comment. >> i yield back. and i am not interested in a debate. >> he is yielded back and now looking at possible tumor panel so have a conversation in a disagreement with this panel included in thank you. >> note, responsibly noted in thank you. >> we been trying to do is to call of the names the next panel

chair number one, mr. courtney supercross. background sounds background sounds background sounds background sounds >> i know were a busy but we can get started, california, are you ready. >> you are provider.

>> thank you mr. chair, i have a common sense bipartisan amendment. no american child under the age of 18, should lose their healthcare because of this bill. but as you know, 42 percent of americans children rely on medicaid, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee said nobody is going to lose their healthcare, no kids will lose their healthcare president trump keep saying about it is all about waste and fraud and abuse were just going after waste and fraud and abuse and representative crenshaw said, no kids will lose their health insurance. in a number of republicans letter to the speaker, that they should make sure that no kids lose their health insurance. but the reality is independent estimates that 800,000 gets this country will lose their

healthcare. any child born in america should have healthcare and so with the republicans say they don't think it students are healthcare will not have a similar minute this bill saying that we guarantee no kid will lose healthcare. i guess ways of the lose healthcare and why the estimates of 800,000 talks realities the work requirements that were tried in arkansas when they saw's parents were kicked off healthcare because of your credit reasons of the kids lost their healthcare as well is not theoretical. thousands of kids in arkansas lost their healthcare. this to me seems like the easiest thing easiest way that we can answer this question, just guarantee the american public, not a single american kid is going to lose healthcare with this bill. that would answer the question good on the promises and

promises from missing is only waste and fraud and abuse and these are is to deprive american kids mourn your healthcare, coming into at this point, i was in allentown, there was a sixth-grader and she stood up and she said her name is sofi and i won't see her last name and she said i am scared shortly that it will be afraid she said she is afraid is a grandmother is on medicare she said she's afraid because she's a single mother is raising her concern about her own healthcare want this amendment to pass so that i can tell sofi that she does not have to be afraid about losing her own healthcare kids like sofi should not be afraid of losing their healthcare across this country. >> the gentleman yields back

known now recognize the gentle lady from virginia. >> thank you mr. chair drinking members from knowing the amendment to this bill my amendment would ensure spectrum allocations for options mowing the president special government officials nothing any other official or their family sprayed also ensure that the fcc did not come with the present or any other government issuing the families, to influence outcomes personal legal battles. spoiler alert this amendment probably will cancel to rest my time to talk about that building a bonus it is the wealthiest 10 percent americans at the extent of the poorest 10 percent is just cost states that are already struggling so massive holes they see the trump administration funding freezes

and they are trying to take on the burden more responsibility shifted to them whether the department of education on the network requirements now to pay for the nutrition benefits for the first time ever prayed in the states are going to be theft in an untenable position of having to raise their own taxes getting more services as i don't still is nothing to address the underling cost healthcare, childcare, groceries, energy bills, or anything else. why are we rushing through this bill, to the point where the bulk of it is being discussed in the middle of the night of everybody else is sleeping and what is the pressure of the wealthiest few in that big of a hurry to get more rich and is there a flash cell on yachts that i do not know about within these markups the middle of the night and include precision that

republicans did not even know about like the public is on the energy and commerce committee to work hard with medicaid provisions imposing co-pays up to $35, an individual who earns up to $300 a week. they did not know it that is somebody to because he could not reverse paper requirements improve their working arkansas individuals kickoff we could not meet work requirements even though they were working hard these funds the kickoff would not be eligible to purchase market-based plans that otherwise could not afford came as a surprise into my colleagues and the committee in the middle of the night in some way between marathon markup in here, provision was added that would cut the federal match for medicaid and states that there provide healthcare probably presented immigrants. means that virginia covers

lawfully present pregnant women and children, could face a cutting federal trigger on and wanting a medicaid expansion now because hundreds of thousands of virginians their health venture providers rural hospitals arrested closing their doors now there will be at least one commitment that might fix that who knows what will happen once and freedom caucus already returned from the white house but who knows when they demanded what they have they want to get more people off of their health insurance what else is in this bill, will be buried in the amendment and what will be buried in the bill receiving the first time in the floor, that we won't have time to take back the stakeholders for the american people. and will there be this be another one of those we rush

through a massive building hope in the senate save the house they impose simply asked again, what is the rush a bill that will harm children. i will say to a family, now, even though you legally cannot leave your child at home, or seven and 89 years old, going to assume that you can go to work once they reach seven years old you know i can tell you in my son was seven, if left on, take care of himself would have burned the house down. we thought through, have we thought through the unintended consequences of some of the provisions that are buried in this bill, surprising even republicans that don't like it that we take our time is right

if you mess it up, the hormone. amy: us with 20 most vulnerable that we represent pretty without, i healed back. sue and i know recognize this courtney of connecticut for five minutes. >> and thank you mr. chairman ranking member the governor members of the panel and a simple straightforward amendment focus on air force one program falls under the jurisdiction and protection portions of the subcommittee and health harms and services in which i served as viking member this amendment will prohibit funds made available by this act to be used for the purpose of modifying an aircraft requirement in the form source raises the executive craft works transferring such aircraft to a nongovernmental entity such as a museum's provision is response to the presence send us into except the following some 47 from qatar deserts and so-called replacement of the current air force one aircraft health is portrayed this idea is a free

air force one might nothing be for the furniture that i can say this with complete certainty, because in 2018 during the first trump ministration, i was authorize the purchase of two boeing 747 aircraft going had originally built in commercial passenger plane airline that went bankrupt the cost of upgrades fitting for these 2.3 place air force one pleat $3.9 billion included stripping the planes interior down to the studs during the point stevenson sewing communications technology space what is essentially applying command-and-control center, not just for nations military, intelligence agency prevent the entire federal government earlier this month acting assistant secretary the air force only pesto, testified before our subcommittee that boeing has a workable plan for the air force to deliver these two points like 2027 is important to note that the final

cost for this point has already exceeded $3.9 billion to the tune of millions of dollars hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns if you the white house confirm that the president has unilaterally accepted a third plane all seen the pictures this aircraft is not enclosed to be ready to fly is air force one and clearly 20 requirements of the same time and expense to be stripped down braided is that suggests are already under contract with the air force truck for delivery the president's current term this is not free new scheme is not going to be free either is 20 cost taxpayers a lot of money in the elements to the conciliation package the armed services provisions $250 billion for the department of defense is allocated under title ii of the u.s. code which has little or no controls on defense will be used across programs and like title

31, safeguards the execution of congressional appropriations. any get markup, but a lot of back-and-forth with committee staff about the fact that the office of management and budget basically present at $150 billion with little or no control or restraint and we know that this budget director the first trump ministration was brazenly reprogramming money with no congressional authorization over and over again. medicare from the possible reasons from congress to approve this amendment critically the constitutional prohibition in article one section nine was a bars any official from accepting gifts or monuments from another government without approval of congress obviously parses nine come close to proving this gift and the prohibition as well as the significant cost of retrofitting third air force one screams out for congress to

exercise a causational duty for the rights given my memorable to and i respect we ask mccoys to make an order manager of an article from forbes magazine hardly democratic media outlet from a bottle authorities are happy to number 740 dated may 15th without objection the record. >> i yield back. background sounds background sounds >> thank you manager making memory members and committee thank you first many nearly 20 hours at this hard-working i greatly appreciated sure everybody in this middle does discussing many very discerning cousin policy applications of this bill during a policy without will result as many as 20 million people health

insurance including assistance in the illumination ira provisions into lowering energy because setting trillions of dollars to the deficit is really just cannot if you are so from cbo which will trigger $500 billion in medicare cuts paper tax breaks for the wealthy americans and corporations. we are to request following the two minutes and protecting national security and to anoint commitments enforcement myth as he was a commonsense provision recommended by the unit is up to affected nationals ensure military ready when result leases for so bill before us because of the fire self waters for the lowest bidders for the purpose of more drilling in a personal guaranty in any of this benefit america's lower energy costs and how special many talk about national security our ability to produce our own energy allows us not to rely upon foreign advisors the something of coastal waters military insulation directly contradicts these efforts as it

endangers our national security by prohibiting military's ability to try to navigate freely here's how i know this because in 2015, the deity every offshore drilling block in the roles and activities critical military readiness national security and they determined that one of any little drilling activity can be done without impeding the critical works my amendment would require the federal government to findings of the dod report something about chortling proposal waters do that since attorney work of the insulation in all of these on the east and west coast classified by the dod is requiring either total prohibition or specific conditions but even everything is built to go except this point, because media threats military readiness national security and that is just not a red mist we should be willing to take the committee address the very real threat i think a minute before you amendment 180

just discussed by my colleagues when we understand the bill rights extra $50 billion to the deity and i don't trust the secretary with $150.150 believe of my second amendment reservation has several items of simple, is that getting any of the funds until a panel of experts review all artifacts like pork destruction and censorship earlier this year the beauty the direction cemetery self begin images and books and stories of historical events by trenton heroes of our military coming up department remove these items as part of the crusade against the consider promoting diversity divisive contact yet pertaining to his reign actually telling the story of nations critical national security is concerning that undersecretary printed the remote images and stories often fight mistakenly all the deadlines of articles and the accomplishments of the navajo who fought in the pacific

island campaign remote pictures drop the atomic bomb in japan remote because of her gay is naval academy and is increasingy four library note gender race and diversity and i know what the case was removed you —-dash. [inaudible]. the doctrine of fascism remains precious time and energy resources on recent has reverberates nation is in preparing for the next conflict pretty seriously like of sensitive national security information military reviews education the accurate history the nation legal to inflict strong democratic drug and service members don't learn from this week on the doomed to repeat the mistakes of the best support for both amendments and i go back the balance my time. >> and thank you. mr. frost you are recognized five minutes to think opportunity to testify. your money him.

at 1:00 a.m. and was surprised to see front of about 150 or maybe 175 people outside the capitol steps in protesting what this bill from testing medicaid cut protesting has to food assistant sam i started to walk around and speaking with people i found folks who are here from all across the nation and of all different ages, all different ethnicities and races and religions in the depressed and republicans and independents and i met people registered about three in the word i heard from people the most especially started rain we stayed other talking to people the most was the trail freighted people feel betrayed on these folks plan this trip to dc for a long time they did not even know this vote would go on but when they found out, republican majority would be hosting hearing on this

budget which it shows the morals of the nation. termination we heard it was happening at 1:00 a.m. in the middle of the night and these people in the middle of their vacation their trips and other things and they decided to come out in the rain families is that we do not want to be betrayed and we want our healthcare promoting want the nutritional assistance, want to budget values of this country and we don't want built that will facilitate the single largest transfer of wealth from the working poor and working-class to the ultra- wealthy and the history of our nation. >> ... vote:

i am in this hearing to offer support for democratic amendment that would reverse the damage of this horrible will that is a scam. i personally have two amendments that i would like you to consider one of them, the first forensic imminent oversight and government reform portion of this bill from taking effect if donald trump violates a supreme court order. the rule of law is fundamental to any functioning country. the only thing that can guarantee people's safety and security. without the rule of law there is chaos, corruption, anarchy. the president loves to talk about the rule of law but goes on to completely ignore the fight supreme court orders that are telling him to do stuff. if any working person at home or to ignore a judge what would happen to them? no politician is above the law including donald trump in our

democracy and rights are hanging literally by a threat in part from plus over and over again are prohibited by federal judges and by law. these have been decisions coming from federal judges appointed by both democrats and republicans. my other amendment overturns a portion of a belt that illuminates tax on silencers that has existed since 1934. republicans want to make it cheaper and easier for the next amass a shooter to carry out their plans and kill innocent people. silencers make it harder for law enforcement to quickly and effectively respond to active shooter situations it makes it more difficult to recognize the sound of gunfire and look at the source of the gunshots. this bill as it give away 2 billion are donors apparently with the continued to enrich the wrong manufacturers that want to make even more money and profit even more off the death of our

children and our people. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you madam chair. as written, this bill is a single biggest transfer of wealth from working people to the ultimate rich in the history of our country. people are to make ends meet. high costs are impacting everybody for the costs of food, the cost of medicine, the cost of rent. the people i speak in rhode island every day feel like they're working harder and harder but they cannot afford to keep up so the trump administration made it worse with reckless tariffs that make it more expensive you know is not struggling?

the billionaires, the people at the very top are doing quite well for themselves. yet, this republican tax bill will make it even worse. listen to this this is from nonpartisan cbo under this bill people to make with a $5 billion a year it will get an extra $100,000 plus on their income every year. middle-class household if you make your family make 70,080,000, $90000 a year you will see on average $45 a year. we are giving millionaires over $100,000 more money the middle class is $45 on average. how is that fair? if you are a family try to make work your way you're making 30,000 to 40000 according to cbo, you will lose more than $1000 a year once the cuts to medicaid and snap are factored in. this republican tax bill is a

literally taking thousands of dollars per family for working people and transferring it to the superrich. my first amendment will reverse this. under my amendment families who earn less than 500,000 a year, the majority of americans most will get a tax break we would lower your tax bracket 2% fewer 22% would make it 20 through 12% make it 10. we would pay for it by adopting donald trump suggestion to put a new tax brackets for people making more that 39.6% tax level. this is a matter of basic fairness. let's ask the people making millions of dollars year to pay their fair share of the middle class and get a tax break. our public and collect cannot summon the courage to stand up to donald trump on almost

anything for donald trump says i won the 2020 election we should overturn the election results over one third of our republican colic said yes or will charge overturn the election for you. the massive tears which are huge tax on the middle class republican colleagues were either silent or submissive. a post is up to dictators like vladimir putin and those al is under the bus crickets from ourr republican colleagues but when he suggested let's increase taxes on the millionaires shall pay for this bill that was too much for our republican colleagues at the first time they said no mr. president, you've gone too far really? i am going to regret the president on this but let's put the tax bracket the higher tax bracket on people making with internet billion dollars a year and instead give real textually to the middle class. my second amendment addresses another unfairness in this bill.

i understand this, this bill is across the board cut two snap benefits, to food aid republican colleagues like to say to waste and fraud or it is just going after people bilking the system. false, 5% cut across the board for every state regardless of error rate. would eliminate 5% cut why eliminate the given division on inheritance up to $30 million on the inheritance tax. how about instead of cutting food for hungry families and working families we sent to the children of millionaires do you know what? you do not need a tax exemption to $30 million of your inheritance. let's go back to $5 million exemption that existed before 2016. will the children's of millionaires get 5 billion

tax-free inheritance they used to get but not 30. inset will feed hungry families by canceling these snap cuts i urge adoption of these amendments to make it a favor bill and i yield back. you are recognized breakups thank you madam chair. hours and hours of amendments all of which in one way or another would improve a terrible piece of legislation said by others way back when i was in the california legislature it's a bad piece of legislature, don't amend it just kill it. this bill deserves to be killed you are operating under the direction of president trump and in that process you are conducting the biggest theft in u.s. history this budget reconciliation bill is the

largest transfer of wealth from the country's most vulnerable people, to its richest people at a time when it trumps tariffs te already causing prices to rise. house republicans making the lives of millions of americans even more difficult by passing the bill that rips healthcare. rips healthcare from nearly 14 million americans who rely on medicaid. including over three and a thred of my own district. i daresay each and every one lawyer democrat or republican, the numbers are similar to this bill in there for you from the tables, at the schools over 18 million children will not have school lunch programs. in other food available to them in their schools. why?

so you can finance one or $50 billion for the pentagon new slush fund. these are to give you the details on how that will work at the way you are structuring that use of that one or $50 billion. we know the pentagon is already wasting money on very dangerous projects. are they allowed? where was the pentagon to deport illegal aliens in deportation flights? the intercontinental ballistic missile, one or 50 billion and another $20 billion for a new nuclear bomb to be used there. that minute and three can serve that purpose have about another boom dongle at golden dome, hello? is anybody know anything about missile defense system do and type at the 30 billion we've already spent on that missile

defense system that doesn't work it was canceled two years ago until the going to start a new and will have a golden dome. this bill does not pay for itself. that used to be across his entire room. all of you used to be deficit hawks somewhere between three and half trillion to $5 trillion will be added to the national debt as a result of this legislation. where did you go? what happened to you? are you frightened of trump is that it? franklin d roosevelt once said the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the budgets of those who have much. it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. this piece of legislation goes exactly the other direction. it adds to the wealth of those who have much and it literally

and actually takes away from those who have little. the congressional budget office yesterday confirmed the bill will raise the incomes, will increase the wealth, the incomes from the wealthiest 10% of americans while simultaneously cutting the incomes for the poorest 10%. what in the world are you doing? why would you do such a thing? why would you increase the wealth of art in those who have much while simultaneously taking away from those who have too little? how do you do it? you got medicare you heard from my colleagues the snap program is to call food stamps. natural food there's already a real regulations on the snap programs can be used for. head start, it goes on and on and it is a disgrace. it is a disgrace.

let's recognize what it is you're doing. the facts, people are struggling. already struggling to pass this legislation and the struggle will be worse for those in the bottom of our economic system. in fact there are so many republicans that have voted actively to harm her own constituents just to curry the favor of donald trump, it is shameful. there is no other word to describe it. how could you possibly feed yourself and you look in the mirror and what you're doing? millions of americans it is a disgrace. the democrats are doing everything we can to stop this disgraceful piece of legislation. i'm proud to send with my democratic colleagues. i am proud they are taking their time and your time and i do have

amendments but i will not have time. quick short long pastor time, john. i let you get both a little too much this round. >> thank you madam chair and ranking member. before addressing my amendment i went to echo all of the arguments made by my colleagues in strong opposition to the big bad billionaire bill. this serves as a trojan horse to jam through hundreds of billions of dollars of medicaid cuts that will devastate tuna 65000 ventura county residents in my district 14 million californians who depend on medicaid to access or healthcare. these cuts will harm children, disabled adults low income seniors they will result in hospital closures across our country. there are many other egregious sections of this bill that will

have a devastating, devastating impact to the american people for many, many years. my amendment today would redirect $1 billion from this bill to fund climate monitoring weather forecasting and disaster preparedness programs. i would challenge my republican colleagues to find constituents in their districts who want to lose access to accurate weather monitoring, particularly as we henge the busiest time first severe storm predictions like tornadoes and hurricanes. just this past weekend deadly tornadoes tore through states from kansas to kentucky. this same weekend reports came out that for the first time in the past 50 years local, national weather service offices would no longer have the capacity to monitor

around-the-clock and parts of the country due to reckless doge cuts. i have a map right here that shows the places in the united states that no longer have access to 24/7 weather monitoring. this is not a partisan talking point it is a matter of life and death. programs like the national weather service are what we promise to the american people in exchange for their hard earned dollars. not tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% while the president takes our economy to help his billionaire friends scam the system and profit off the american public. the mindless destruction of america's critical government program only makes our country weaker. it makes it less safe and less prosperous. it is just plain irresponsible

and it cannot stand. i'm offering this amendment as a necessary course correction to invest back into communities and into public safety. the forecast know it produces are critical among symbols all sectors of america's economy from safe air travel, managing our water supplies, supporting the outdoor recreation industry, the seasonal forecast that helps farmers decide when to plant and when to harvest their crops. perhaps most importantly to issue all of the tornado hurricanes, floods extreme wildfire conditions during extreme weather events. extreme weather events that are only going to get worse. the growers in my district certainly know this. they are the ones on the front lines responding to the climate impact that cause shifting

production seasons the reduction with natural disasters the republicans proposals will exasperate the climate crisis while taking away funding for vulnerable communities to prepare for natural disasters. in the face of the trump tax scan that threatens our clean air, safe water, public health and economic prosperity i am proposing we instead invest in programs that will keep our communities safer and ready to respond to extreme weather. with that madam chair i urge this committee to adopt my amendment and i yield back. >> thank you very much. i think our witnesses for being here read the panel for being here. does anyone on our side of the out wish to ask a question?

you are recognized. because i just think this panel. i appreciate you being here. i know some of you were here at 1:00 a.m. in the morning. i just want to again, thanks for sticking it out. think it matters people are paying attention and it's important we are fighting back. especially against the bill we might be so egregious. we will support the amendments. we will have your back. and it want to say thank you. and madam chair, before i yield back i don't know whether you have updates on schedule? i have been trying to read news reports whether or not they come to an agreement on a manager's amendment. i do not know what it might be what you anticipate the schedule for the evening to be? >> i believe we do have an

agreement on the manager's amendment. i am not exactly sure of the schedule because i've not been able to-i came in we were trading places i will give you updates for. >> is your expectation rules will reconvene tonight? x yes because if that's the case is your expectation that will be on the floor tonight? >> yes. i took eight we start at one in the morning will finish at two in the morning but okay, all right. i think the gentle lady and i yield back. >> thank you. >> i did more than wade this waive thistime >> and got it ats point. mr. courtney and per share amendment should with your respected this royal family claim that the president is trying to accept in the judiciary committee we have spell focus on the fact it's a pretty clear violation of the

foreign emoluments laws. i pressured the fact you're bringing up its actually a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. keep talk about that for a minute? >> sure. there probably is no worse way to build an air force when then take a plane that's already been fitted out and then had to strip it down and create all of the special characteristics of air force one. we know this because as we don't the two planes and process. by the way it looks like it will be delivered, while president trump is still president so there's no need for a bridge or play nugget's planes in 2027. they are building a third air force one is a complete waste of money. >> it seems offensive to our armed forces who are responsible for maintaining the plane. i'll be is has something unseemly and then of course to

national security concerns as well. i appreciate ways in the wastefulness and abuse of the taxpayer dollars there. i know you're testifying about your bill i was wondering if their implications with the burden on the state? >> i was a state appropriate or i was in the state legislature will be expanded medicaid. states cannot print money and they have have a balanced budget. this bill shifts a lot of cost of the state for nutrition program, for medicaid spending. but we've got to look about in a broader context. first let me talk about the work requirement. only to have done it when i talked about georgia spent more money on the administrative

costs than it did on the cost of healthcare. and as a matter of fact, pro- public a and current did an analysis that showed three quarters of the near 87 million they spent on the program went to consultants. that's why states have not done it because the administrative cost to set it up and run it is high. but now you have epa grants that have been categorical epa grants have been cut. the states have to worry about how are you going to do with clean air and clean water? take a state like virginia has a second-highest number of federal workers. analysis is already shown our employment rate has gone out. our gdp is expected to slow. we are seeing economic impacts of what the administration is already done. they are now worried, is not going to have a surplus because

now were going to have all these other costs coming down from the federal government. oh, by the way, this built handcuffs the state's ability to increase the provider tax. and, what are you doing all of that you're handcuffing the state's responsibility to regulate in any way a.i. which is a hole of the conversation. i want to throw that in there. the party that says let's get everything back to the state is giving the state a massive hole in their budget. and handcuffing their ability. they're going to do one of two things. they're either going to raise their taxes or they are going to significantly cut not just medicaid services but education, environmental protection, transportation, infrastructure, public safety, this is -- make this bill and the actions of the trump administration already are blowing massive holes and state

budgets that somebody has got to pay and it's going to be through increase state and local taxes. >> thank you for that. i'm hearing similar concern from our pennsylvania legislators. luckily their appropriating contracts have been awarded and suddenly they been canceled by doge or the white house with the office of management and budget will however it is impounding money illegally. the people have projects underway and all of a sudden the rug is being pulled out from under them and then we are seeing additional huge cost shift is a bait and switch or kicking the can down the road pickers and think it's a giant sucking sound. >> thank you, and thank you for being here and bearing with us tonight. i yield back. >> thank you. you are recognized. >> sorry, a lot of paperwork

over your madam chair. thank you all for your testimony and your amendments and the support the amendment. own to follow up on a point the ranking member mentioned that we have been here now 19 hours close to 24 hours straight started at 1:00 a.m. and as the ranking member said it sounds like it very well may end at 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. with the vote in the dead of night on the floor on 1000 page bill that would have dramatic negative consequences for the american people. i don't know i could say it any better than waive your colleagues madamay chair. representative massie who posted on social media a little while ago, i will call, the major provisions a big beautiful bill are still being negotiated and written. yet we are being told we will all vote on it today. shouldn't we take more than a few hours to read a bill this big in this consequential? what is interesting as a commentator responded to that tweet and said it wasn't that a

promise to, you all get 48 hours to read new bills before voting? mr. massie's response yes it's in our rules above 72 hours to read every bill. yet it's been circumvented this week by managers amendment which substantially changes the bill but should only contain technical clarifications and a rule called same-day rule has also been suspended. we know it was in yesterday. here's the point we've seen this movie before i suppose we will wait here with baited breath for the managers amendment to be submitted to this committee. i suspect the managers amendment is not going to have technical corrections and changes to the rule print but instead will be fundamental changes to this bill. house democrats ultimately the american public will be compelled to reckon with and try to discern whether those changes are the impact the changes will have on the constituents and the dead of night.

i would encourage i would hope we were not able to convince the speaker to hold this hearing we failed in that effort perhaps we were successful waiting for the speaker to put the bill on the floor in the morning and let the american people actually have a chance to listen to the debate that unfolds on house floor. with that i will yield back. >> thank you. you are recognized. >> thank you and once again i think we heard from this panel a range of ideas that only through showing up in testifying and speaking very little republican participation. as we've noticed this morning they do not even want to read out loud their own bills. they are so ashamed of what is in the bill.

but what you all have done is come to us with a provision that we cannot have the corruption from qatar that we were seeing. we can protect state rights in state budgets and some kind of respect and the obligation the federal government has. in the silencer then, thank you very much for bringing that up today. and yes, there are ways of addressing the deficit and actually protecting the middle class. but they don't really want to get to because as you have pointed out it's all about the wealthy. everything they do is about the wealthy there's all kinds of other stuff do they have their heads in the sand or what? it's like they are ignoring the danger around us.