- 7/2/2025
At today's House Rules Committee hearing, Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) questioned Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX) about the Big Beautiful Bill.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Thank you very much. Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized.
00:04Madam Chair, I yield back.
00:06Thank you. Mr. Negus, you're recognized.
00:10I thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member, and, of course, welcome back to all of the Chairs and Ranking Members, and thank you for your testimony today.
00:19I, of course, oppose this bill for all of the reasons that my colleagues, Ranking Member McGovern and Representative Scanlon, articulated.
00:28I think it is a terrible bill. I think it's cruel. I think it'll have devastating consequences, certainly for the people of Colorado that I represent, but ultimately for millions of Americans across our country.
00:39But I will also just say this before I jump into a few questions that I have for the members that are here today.
00:45I think that the process has been abysmal. It's a debasement of the way in which the House is supposed to operate.
00:56Most of you, the last time you were here in the Rules Committee, was at 2 a.m., four weeks ago, when we last considered the House version of this bill.
01:07Because House Republicans decided, in their infinite wisdom, to schedule that hearing in the dead of night, hoping that the American people would not learn what was in the bill, knowing that it was indefensible.
01:19Now, of course, a few mere hours after the United States Senate has passed this bill, without any final text on what we're actually going to be voting on, we're here, considering this bill.
01:34It's laughable.
01:37And in my view, deeply disrespectful to the way in which the House of Representatives is supposed to function.
01:44Mr. Neguse.
01:45Of course, I'm happy to yield.
01:47Would you yield for a question?
01:48Sure.
01:49Are you aware that the Democrats did this when the Senate passed a 4,000-page bill and sent it over to the House, and the Rules Committee met very soon after that?
02:05When was this?
02:06Perhaps.
02:07I think, I'm not sure if it was the IRA.
02:10I will get you the specific date, but I don't know if you were appalled at the way the House operated then.
02:19I'd be happy.
02:20But I figured you probably weren't aware that the precedent was set very badly by the Democrats.
02:27So thank you for yielding.
02:29Madam Chair, I'm going to yield to the ranking member in a moment.
02:31First, I would hope that you might ask the team, your team, to provide us with that example so that we can have a more fulsome colloquy instead of sort of citing a random example that I'm not aware of.
02:41But I also would just say if, I guess, that Madam Chair is making the case that…
02:46I now have the facts.
02:49Consolidated Appropriations Bill in 2023.
02:53So an appropriations bill that was bipartisan that the vast majority of the United States Congress voted on, that's the example you're offering compared to a reconciliation bill that is purely partisan that not a single Democratic member of the United States Senate or the House of Representatives is voting on?
03:08That's the corollary to this particular bill?
03:11As Ranking Member Boyle, I think, eloquently put it in questioning, or rather in his answers to Representative Scanlon, the precedents that Republicans are setting in this Congress will certainly be leveraged down the road when political winds shift.
03:26And we have seen that on full display over the last month and a half.
03:30The ranking member wished to jump in.
03:32I want to reprive him of that opportunity.
03:34I want to withhold my comments because I won't be productive at this moment.
03:38Yeah, and look, I thank the ranking member, or I suppose maybe the Chair thanks the ranking member.
03:44I guess my point here is, let's dispense with this notion that, you know, every one of the witnesses who are here today, on either side of the aisle,
03:53I think the Democratic members would probably concede to this, that they know what is in this bill.
03:58We don't know.
04:00It was just approved four hours ago.
04:05None of the members that are gathered here have gone through in detail the wraparound amendment.
04:12And I think it's disrespectful to the voters, to the citizens of the country, to pretend otherwise.
04:18Who would I ask, I don't know if it's Chair Guthrie or maybe it's Chair Smith, with respect to changes made to HSAs and FSAs and sort of medical spending accounts?
04:29Who?
04:31Did I send that question to you?
04:33Yep.
04:34Okay, so under the prior bill, my understanding is there was a provision that allows individuals to utilize discounted healthcare services at workplace clinics to maintain an HSA.
04:45Is that provision still in the bill?
04:47Has it been taken out of the bill?
04:49What's the...
04:50There's only a couple provisions of the HSAs that stayed intact.
04:55The primary care being qualified in HSAs is one...
05:02What about the workplace clinic provision?
05:04I don't believe so.
05:05Okay.
05:06How about there was a provision that allows employees to convert flexible spending arrangements to health reimbursement arrangements.
05:12Did that stay in?
05:13I will have to get back to you on that one.
05:16Okay.
05:17What about...
05:18There was a provision, actually, you all testified to this, I remember, hard to believe, because it was 3 a.m. in the morning during this Rules Committee hearing,
05:24but there was a discussion about permitting individuals below a certain income threshold to be able to contribute additional amounts to their HSA every year.
05:31Was that included?
05:32Excluded?
05:33They cut a lot of our HSAs.
05:35Is that one of them?
05:36That's one of them as well.
05:37That was cut?
05:38Yeah, it's not in the bill.
05:40Okay.
05:41Part of what I'm getting at here, Chair Smith, because you alluded to this earlier.
05:45I hear you with respect to the process that you engaged in prior to the bill's consideration by this committee, the House version.
05:53But no one can argue that this is good governance, that we should all gather here and in real time figure out together what provisions of the bill that was passed by the House had survived
06:06and which were excised as part of a political gainsmanship to get the necessary votes in the Senate.
06:11That's my process point here.
06:14In regards to the tax portion of the bill, there's 103 different tax provisions that's in the Senate version.
06:22Of those 103, 85% of them are either identical or just technical changes because of the parliamentarian of what we passed out of the House.
06:32What are the new ones?
06:33Are there new ones?
06:34Yes, there are.
06:35Let me read these to you.
06:45So the new ones that they added was the dyed fuels, which is Ms. Moore's provision that she likes.
06:52New Markets was included, made permanent, the New Markets Tax Credit Program.
06:58They eliminated the deduction on sports teams owners that was in there.
07:04They eliminated the salt workaround that was within the House bill.
07:11I'm trying to just do tax through here.
07:15Sure.
07:16The increase in excise tax on private foundations was eliminated, which we had in the House bill.
07:22They also lowered the rates on the endowment taxes.
07:26We had a 21% rate.
07:28They kept the same brackets, but their highest is 8%.
07:33They did a childcare boost to the CDC, TC, and FSAs.
07:41The Chips and Science Acts Tax Credit was adjusted in this bill, and also the charitable deduction.
07:53I think you're missing one.
07:54Which one is that?
07:56Whalers.
07:57What's that?
07:58A new tax break for whalers, right?
08:01Whalers.
08:02Am I?
08:03Whalers.
08:04Are you talking about allowing someone who uses a Harpen to deduct the cost of that Harpen?
08:11Correct.
08:12That's included.
08:13It's a business expense.
08:14It's a new tax break, right?
08:15It's a business expense that was capped at $10,000, and now they can deduct it.
08:20Up to $50,000, right?
08:21Yes.
08:22Yes.
08:23Yes.
08:24Why was that added?
08:25I think we all know, right?
08:26You'd have to talk to the Senators.
08:27I'd have to talk to the Senators?
08:28Yeah.
08:29I don't know.
08:30It was kind of convenient, Chairman Smith, that that was the one addition that you omitted
08:34from that list you provided.
08:36There's probably more that I left off here.
08:39That may be the case.
08:40I think it's emblematic of the broken process that the Senate engaged in.
08:45That as we go through this 900-page bill, we will find a variety of different provisions
08:51that different Senators inserted for their own purposes.
08:55And, of course, one of them was this wailing tax deduction for the 160 or so people that
09:02would be able to claim that in the state of Alaska so that one of the Senators from Alaska
09:07would feel comfortable voting for the bill.
09:09I don't think that that's, in my view, the way this process should unfold.
09:14But, in any event, while we're having this colloquy, Chairman Smith.
09:17Is that all it took?
09:18I'm not sure.
09:19I mean, boy, choose a cheap date if that's all it took.
09:22Mr. Chairman, we talked a bit, or rather, I know you talked a bit with the ranking member
09:27previously about the way in which this bill's benefits are distributed.
09:32And that's been a topic of conversation throughout this hearing.
09:35I want to talk about one particular example that, to me, and it's perhaps an ideological
09:41dispute, I suspect, between the two of us here, that crystallizes the way in which this
09:47bill benefits the wealthy few.
09:50This bill includes an increase in the estate tax cap, correct?
09:58It goes up to $30 million?
10:00$15 million per person.
10:02$15 million per person, $30 million for a married couple.
10:04Yes.
10:05Right? Okay.
10:06Do you know what state benefits the most from that provision?
10:12I can tell you of the family farmers in my congressional district that benefits from that provision.
10:19And that is what it's focused on in regards to-
10:22But what state?
10:23Missouri.
10:24No, no, no, I know you represent Missouri.
10:25I'm asking you, this provision, right, in which state in the union-
10:29How about you tell me?
10:30That would be great.
10:31I'm happy to tell you.
10:32It's California.
10:33California has the most individuals, 742 people to be exact, 742 estates that benefited
10:40in the most recent tax year from this particular deduction, right?
10:44That is to say, by increasing it-
10:47There's-
10:48Hold on.
10:49I'll give you a chance, of course, Mr. Smith.
10:51But the state that has the most individuals that will benefit from this provision happens
10:57to be California.
10:59That's not me saying that.
11:01That's empirical data.
11:02Now, what is the population of Missouri?
11:05Over 6 million.
11:07Over 6 million, similar size to Colorado.
11:10How many estates were subject to this tax in the last year?
11:17It all depends.
11:18I don't know how many people died in the last year, but what I will tell you, in your district
11:23alone, 3,700 farms, just farms are affected by this provision for family farms.
11:30I can tell you-
11:31That's pretty substantial.
11:3237-bound.
11:33That above the limit, above the $30 million limit, right, or excuse me, under the $28
11:37because right now it's, what's the number now, $26 or $28 million for a married couple?
11:42It's $14 million, you know, $28 million.
11:45Correct.
11:46$28 million.
11:47So I can tell you that in Missouri, the number is 44.
11:5144 estates that ultimately would be subject to that estate tax above-
11:56I don't believe that number.
11:58I will provide you the-
12:00Yeah, people can make a lot of numbers, but I can tell you in my district alone, there's
12:04over 4,000 family farms that are falling underneath this trap of the death tax.
12:11I will, we will follow up-
12:13Yeah.
12:14And happy to engage with you further on it.
12:17Chairman Arrington.
12:18Yes, sir.
12:19Welcome back.
12:20Good to be back.
12:21So this is your third time testifying in the last month and a half.
12:24And the third time's the charm, I think I'm going to convince you to support this bill.
12:28Here's where I'm struggling, Chairman Arrington, is that the first time you came on the budget
12:34resolution, right?
12:35Second time you came on the House version of this bill.
12:38That's correct.
12:39Now you're here on the Senate version of this bill.
12:41Yes.
12:42Every time you testify, this bill gets more expensive.
12:44Right?
12:45I mean, you don't contest that.
12:47It's gotten more expensive since the first time you were here.
12:49The Senate bill is more expensive than the House.
12:52Sure.
12:53I'll see that.
12:54Okay.
12:55I mean, I-
12:56We set the targets the first time.
12:57Of course.
12:58Yeah.
12:59Second time we had the policies.
13:00And this isn't, these aren't-
13:01Gotcha questions.
13:02Yeah.
13:03Not a gotcha question.
13:04This is the Center for- Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, right?
13:06Headline.
13:07This is two days ago.
13:08Newest Senate reconciliation bill would explode the debt.
13:13Right?
13:14It says here,
13:15If you thought the House bill borrowed too much, and it did, the Senate manages to make things
13:21even worse.
13:22The four-
13:23This four trillion dollar borrowing bonanza is fiscally dangerous at a time of already exploding
13:29debt.
13:30It would borrow one trillion dollars more than the House bill, violates the House reconciliation
13:35sanctions by hundreds of billions of dollars, littered with special interest giveaways.
13:39Right?
13:40So, this bill continues to get more and more expensive.
13:45Committee for Responsible Federal Budget agrees.
13:47The litany of organizations that Ranking Member Boyle and Ranking Member McGovern agree.
13:52The House Freedom Caucus, of course, of which we have a number of members here that serve
13:57on the committee.
13:58There are members of the committee.
14:00They concede that as well, right?
14:02The Senate's version adds $651 billion to the deficit, and that's before interest costs,
14:09which nearly double the total.
14:12Chairman, I have made this request of you every time you're here.
14:17That at some juncture, you might say, you know, this is a bridge too far.
14:22Because you have championed deficit reduction earlier in your career.
14:26But, you know, the Speaker is asking you to defend something that is indefensible with respect
14:33to deficit reduction.
14:34And it's not me making this case.
14:36So, I just, you know, I'm going to give you an opportunity to respond here, but what
14:41do you say to the House Freedom Caucus?
14:43What do you say to the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget?
14:46Why not engage in a conference?
14:49Why accept what the Senate has sent you at face value?
14:52You're the chairman of the Budget Committee.
14:55Well, I think you would agree that in large legislative initiatives like this one, Democrat-led
15:03or Republican, there are things you like about a bill, things you don't like about a bill,
15:08things that you, and certainly that exists for this bill with me.
15:14I have my policy preferences, and I'm certain that my colleagues do as well.
15:20I'm concerned that neither party has been serious in addressing this unsustainable debt trajectory
15:28that we're on and a debt crisis that looms large for the country.
15:34I'm concerned that neither party has...
15:38But you're the chair.
15:39I mean, you have the opportunity to guide that now.
15:41You've got a lot of authority.
15:42And as you know, I've championed that concern.
15:45Help me understand, why did it get more expensive?
15:48Maybe that's a sort of too simplistic of a question.
15:51What happened in the Senate?
15:52Why did this bill get more expensive?
15:54Yeah.
15:55What did they add that increased the cost?
15:58Well, the savings on the SNAP side or in the AG jurisdiction, I think it's about $100 billion loss
16:08in savings on the Senate side versus the House side.
16:12There were more savings in the Senate on Medicaid reform versus the House side.
16:18You know, all of that, when you go through the details on the policy...
16:22But it's still way more expensive.
16:23No, no, I'm going to get to exactly...
16:25I think it's mostly a wash on mandatory program reforms.
16:32Gain some, lose some.
16:34The tax policy is where the additional expenses...
16:37That's where the preponderance...
16:38Got it.
16:39...of the difference in cost in the Senate versus the House.
16:42So why not go through this bill and find some opportunities to get some of the pork out
16:50of the bill, which I presume would, you know, maybe satiate some of your colleagues in the
16:56House Freedom Caucus, certainly would be a lot less harmful to the deficit.
17:00I mean, why not...
17:01Let me give you an example.
17:02Yeah.
17:03This bill includes a slush fund for OMB upwards of $100 million.
17:10You're familiar with that?
17:12I'm familiar with a lot of the funding.
17:14Right.
17:15And that wasn't in the House version.
17:17So, you know, you're not going to ask all of your colleagues to just give $100 million
17:23blank check to the Office of Management and Budget.
17:27That didn't seem like good fiscal policy to me.
17:30I can't imagine that you would think that that's good fiscal policy.
17:33Well, if it was used, for example, to...
17:35Oh, come on, Chair.
17:37No, it's just...
17:38This is a fair and true statement.
17:40And I think I've said it before.
17:41Sure.
17:42If I haven't, I've believed it.
17:45I think there are ways to invest money in the oversight and the infrastructure to actually
17:53prevent fraudulent and even unintended overpayments.
17:58So is there no pork in this bill, then?
18:00So there's waste...
18:01In OMB, in fairness to OMB...
18:03No, I'm talking about in the bill.
18:04Yeah.
18:05There's no pork in this bill that we can take...
18:06It's a pork-free bill, in your view?
18:07That's it?
18:08All right.
18:09This is just...
18:10If you'll ask me specifics...
18:12What about the Garden of Heroes?
18:14$40 million for President Trump's Garden of Heroes.
18:17Can't we...
18:18Why not just say, you know what?
18:20We've got a huge deficit and that's probably not the most prudent way to spend our taxpayer
18:27dollars.
18:28Let's just reallocate that $40 million.
18:31That's a bridge too far for you?
18:32Well, I think there's not a bill that I've read and reviewed since I've been a member
18:38of Congress, certainly since I've been the budget chair, that I felt lived up perfectly
18:43to what I thought we ought to do in stewardship of tax dollars.
18:47And what I thought was consistent with the constitutional scoping of this federal government.
18:53I hear you.
18:54I hear you, Chair.
18:55But I think you could understand our struggle because, as I said, last seven weeks...
18:59You've testified a few times here.
19:01Every time you testify, this bill gets more expensive.
19:04And the answer is always, well, down the road, you know, of course, we could address this
19:09and there are ways in which we can try to identify potential places where funding, you
19:13know, where potential cuts can be identified and so on and so forth.
19:16Here is an example right in front of you.
19:19$40 million.
19:21You could take care of that today.
19:23There's an amendment, I believe, that was submitted.
19:25You could rule that in order and say, you know what?
19:27We're going to put that $40 million towards deficit reduction.
19:31If you're serious about wanting to address the fiscal health of the country.
19:36But to me, I think this bill couldn't be a worse representation, respectfully, of fiscal discipline.
19:47You have a bill that, according to the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, is more aggregated
19:54than the CARES Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the
20:00Chips and Science Bill combined.
20:02Combined.
20:03All four bills are equivalent that this bill takes the cake.
20:08It's bigger than all of them.
20:09And I just don't know how one can justify supporting it.
20:14I disagree with that statement.
20:16But I hear what you're saying.
20:17I know you disagree with that assessment.
20:18Okay.
20:19And I'm hoping I can get you, maybe by the end of this hearing, to support the removing
20:23the Garden of Heroes funding, so that we can at least maybe make a crack at addressing
20:27some, you know, fiscal sanity in the country.
20:29Maybe Mr. Roy might consider supporting that amendment.
20:32We'll see.
20:33I wonder, obviously, we've talked a lot about all the folks who oppose this bill.
20:38I'm sure you saw Elon Musk very, has been very vocal about his opposition to this bill.
20:48You're aware of that?
20:49I am aware of that.
20:50And?
20:51Sincerely held convictions.
20:53You disagree?
20:54You think he's wrong?
20:55No, I think he has sincerely held convictions about the runaway spending.
20:58But then why not follow his, I mean, he has encouraged everybody to.
21:02I don't follow any man in particular.
21:04You don't follow any man?
21:05I follow my conscience.
21:06Let me read you a quote.
21:07If I may.
21:08Let me just finish this quote.
21:09I'll read it to you.
21:10Okay.
21:11And then you'll let me respond.
21:12This is from your website.
21:13This is from your website on May 29th.
21:14Quote, this is the headline, Arrington applauds Elon Musk's leadership.
21:18And the quote here is, we should not only appreciate Elon's courageous leadership, but
21:22follow it by holding Washington accountable, rooting out waste, restoring fiscal sanity
21:29where the debt burden crushes the future of this great nation.
21:32So I don't.
21:33Yeah.
21:34I agree.
21:35Sounds like you were telling people about a month ago that we should, that folks should
21:36follow his lead.
21:37A hundred percent.
21:38On debt reduction.
21:39But it's a different tune.
21:40No, it's not.
21:41We cut twice the amount of spending that has ever been reduced in this, the people's government,
21:48and the history of the people's government.
21:50So, you know, if you're looking to make the argument this bill isn't perfect when it comes
21:56to any principle, including fiscal discipline, you win.
21:59Well, I appreciate that.
22:01Because it's not perfect.
22:02And so you win.
22:03I mean, honestly.
22:04But to say that, you know, the old Ronald Reagan 80-20, fill in the blank, in not so perfect
22:13processes, in a political process, having significant reforms on the fiscal side, excuse me, like
22:21the spending cuts, like the welfare reforms that are long overdue, much needed, like preventing,
22:29which 40-some-odd Democrats opposed, preventing taxpayer dollars to flow to people who are
22:35here illegally.
22:36That, I think, is all consistent with what I understand Elon Musk's concern.
22:40And I hear you, Mr. Chairman.
22:41But I would just simply say, I mean, again, part of the frustration for me, and I suspect
22:46many Americans, is that there's sort of this notion that we don't have the agency to shape
22:51the bill.
22:52So, you know, if we as a Congress decide that we don't really want to have special interest
22:57tax breaks for tanning salons, as was the case in the original bill that the House put
23:02forward, or for whaling deductions, right?
23:05If we decide that we don't want to spend $40 million on the Garden of Heroes at the White
23:10House, we can proceed with shaping policy that does precisely that.
23:15And I just, I would just venture to say, Mr. Chairman, that it feels like you have an
23:20opportunity here.
23:21You have a number of members on this committee on the other side of the aisle who express their
23:26opposition to the bill and their indication that they're going to vote against the rule.
23:29And I would just, would hope that you take that opportunity to perhaps change course.
23:36I want to move to the snap, excuse me, to the snap cuts and also just the agriculture title
23:42of the bill and to Ranking Member Craig and to Chairman Thompson.
23:46So, Chairman Thompson, I guess I want to understand more clearly what you all are trying to achieve
23:55with this state cost, this sort of new imposition of state costs with respect to snap.
24:03Because my understanding was that this was designed originally to try to incentivize improvement in snap payments, right?
24:15State based, right?
24:16State based, right?
24:17Basically to reduce the error rate.
24:18Am I, is that right?
24:20Or am I?
24:21Yeah, the ultimate goal is to have the state who's a partner within the snap nutrition program.
24:27Obviously, they've had no skin in the game before.
24:30And as I said, my opening remarks, you know, there is a tendency, if you're spending somebody
24:35else's money, you're, you're reckless with it.
24:37If you have a little, you have to spend even part of your own money.
24:40You pay closer to the attention of the effectiveness.
24:43And we have been, the error rates have been-
24:47The real problem.
24:48It's been a real problem.
24:49My own state of Pennsylvania under Governor Shapiro, it was at 17%.
24:53I'm glad they got it down to 11% as of the data that came out yesterday, but that's still unacceptable.
25:00If it's an underpayment, that's a family that's, once their EBT, is looking to their EBT card
25:05to be, to be loaded appropriately.
25:08So when they go to the grocery store, you know, they know that resource there.
25:12It's not, and it's supplemental.
25:14It's in addition to everything else in their lives, right?
25:16Sure.
25:17But still, if it's, if it's, if it's an underpayment, it hurts those family members.
25:22If it's an overpayment, believe it or not, it hurts even more.
25:25They're going to spend it because it's there, but then the states will come back, whether
25:31it's two months or six months, and they'll claw that back.
25:34And all of a sudden, these families find that they have no money in a given month.
25:39And so, these error rates have been absolutely out of control.
25:43The bottom line, we've got to get the error rates down.
25:45Absolutely.
25:46So this is meant to be an incentive.
25:48Exactly.
25:49And I-
25:50Here's the question.
25:51Yep.
25:52Under the bill as it's drafted now, the higher your error rate, the more likely you are
25:58to get a waiver not to have to pay anything as a state.
26:02Well, that's, but it's short term.
26:04It's for a number of years for certain-
26:06But why give states-
26:07Well, it, you know what?
26:08You'd have to sit down with the senators to figure out why they did that.
26:11Alaska's one of my things-
26:12But does that, I mean, does that make sense to you?
26:14The general lady from Pennsylvania named the states that wound up on, on, on that, I mean-
26:19Correct.
26:20The ten states, Oregon, New Jersey-
26:21It was a, it was a Senate amendment-
26:23Correct.
26:24Implementation of state-
26:25And it's a delayed implementation of state-
26:27Correct.
26:28Cost share.
26:29It doesn't-
26:30But why does that, I guess what I'm trying to understand, and you may not-
26:32Why did they do it?
26:33Well, I-
26:34Well, we're all in politics.
26:35We know why they did it in the Senate, in order to get certain votes from certain states-
26:39And if that is the case, does that not violate the very objective that you are trying to achieve?
26:45No, I-
26:46Let me, let me explain why, then I'll give you a chance-
26:47It does in long term, because-
26:48Okay.
26:49It does result in a state share-
26:50Let's say it this way.
26:51It just gives them more time-
26:52Sure.
26:53To be able to get there.
26:54Let me, let me say it this way.
26:55The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Royce here, Texas has an error rate that hovers around 6%.
27:02So right now, under the bill, as it was, as it is proposed, Texas wouldn't necessarily, if it, right, if it stays below that 6%, doesn't have to pay a state portion-based cost for SNAP.
27:16If it gets above 6%, it jumps up to 6.5%.
27:21For the next several years, Texas, the state of Texas, and Texas taxpayers have to foot the bill of a state pro rata cost.
27:30That's correct.
27:31Hold on, I'm not asking a question.
27:32They've never had a payment yet.
27:33Mr. Thompson.
27:34I'm not asking a question.
27:35Texas has to do so.
27:36We do.
27:37I will.
27:38Texas has to do so.
27:40Oregon right now, which has one of the highest error rates in the country, does not have to pay a single taxpayer dollar towards this program.
27:51You have designed a program in which you are incentivizing states to have a higher error rate.
27:58If you're, if you're a state, and Reiki Member Craig, maybe, I'm asking Reiki Member Craig a question.
28:03It's a transition plan.
28:04She can ask, she can answer if she'd like.
28:08If you are a state with an error rate of 10% or 11% or 12%, if you can get your error rate higher.
28:15That's right.
28:16Then under this bill, you won't have to pay a dime.
28:18And you get, under this bill that came back today from the Senate, in fact, you get two bites at the apple over two years to get your error rate up so that you can not have to pay the cost shift for a period of time.
28:34It's insanity.
28:35It's insanity.
28:36I don't, and I know this is not your, outside of your respective departments.
28:38So, but if, if Chair Guthrie or Chair Errington or Chair Errington or Chair Errington.
28:43I don't, and maybe there's another Republican here.
28:45And I know this is not your, outside of your respective departments.
28:51So, but if, if, if Chair Guthrie or Chair Errington or Chair Smith want to jump in to defend that particular provision, I, I don't, and, and by the way, I mean, I, before I give that opportunity.
29:13I don't know, we'll see if this bill passes in the House, but I can assure you that if it doesn't pass, you know, if, if there are enough Republican members who say, you know what, this is a bridge too far, this provision is not surviving.
29:25It's not going to survive the sunlight of the next 48 hours.
29:29There's no way.
29:30I, I, I am calling it now.
29:32I, I cannot imagine that Republicans are going to say, yeah, we're fine with Portland paying not a dime for a state portion of SNAP.
29:42We're going to instead just make sure that we impose these costs on the states that are actually doing a good job.
29:48And you do realize that none of the states will pay for the immediate future.
29:52Of course.
29:53Zero states because it is an implementation plan.
29:55Yes, but you've delayed it even further for the worst, the worst offenders.
29:58So this, you know, basically if you're a state, you are incentivized to get that error rate up, you know, get it up to 18%.
30:05That way you can delay having to comply with this mandate as, as long as possible.
30:09Ricky, member Craig.
30:10Mr. Ngoose, I, excuse me.
30:12Um, I, I just want to say I may never have another chance in my entire career here to say that I agree with Chip Roy.
30:18So I'd like to get that on the record here in my testimony today.
30:22Uh, and, and secondly, what, beyond the Republicans in this room agreeing that this is a good policy, try going home to your own constituents with,
30:34uh, uh, in a state with a low error rate and explaining to your county commissioners why they, in 10 states across this country, are actually going to have to increase taxes at the local level so that these 10 states, the other 10 states with high error rates, don't have to pay their fair share of taxes.
30:55Uh, again, I, I've just never seen anything as ridiculous as what we've seen come over from the Senate.
31:00And I, I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could stand up and say, no, we need more time.
31:05We need to fix this.
31:06Yeah.
31:07I, I certainly agree with you, record member Craig.
31:08I think you articulated it.
31:09Well, as I said, whaling taxes, tanning salons, all the, the, the pork and nonsense that has been included in this bill.
31:18This provision really is the most nonsensical.
31:21And I, Chair Aronson?
31:22If I may.
31:23Maybe you might.
31:24Yeah, if I may.
31:25Yeah.
31:26You know what the cost share is today of states that have an error rate of, let's just use Alaska since it's a subject of conversation.
31:3660%, 60%, 60 cents on the dollar error rate.
31:41Do you know what the policy is today and under the last four years of the Democrat administration and the leadership of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle?
31:50Sure.
31:51Yes.
31:52Correct.
31:53So I hope, I believe you to be a fair person.
31:56I'm sure that the indignation that you have over not phasing this in quick, as quickly as maybe we all would want, I certainly would be one to say we should implement it effective immediately.
32:11But it hasn't even existed.
32:13And I think you would agree.
32:15But why give that special break to New Jersey over Texas?
32:18I don't know that I can answer that, but I can tell you that having four years when you all had total control over this process, when you jammed a partisan bill, it was a tax and spending bill called the Inflation Reduction Act.
32:31This wasn't addressed then.
32:33I would say, kudos to Republicans, it's not perfect once again, but we're going to phase in accountability for states who have a 60 cents on the dollar error rate.
32:46If we could get that implemented today, I'd take it if we can get it in two years, that's better than what it was.
32:50I indulge you, Chairman.
32:51I indulge you, Chairman.
32:52I would just simply say, I think that's going to be a hell of an argument to make to the people in West Texas two years from now to say, look, I get it.
32:58I know you all are paying more now for SNAP, you know, by virtue of this new mandate.
33:03But just rest assured, the people in Oregon and the people in New Jersey who are, or rather the state governments there, who are doing a far worse job with respect to the error rate, don't worry, they're not paying a dime.
33:14I don't, that doesn't seem like an argument that I would think Republicans want to make to their constituents, but that's, I'm not a Republican.
33:21So, ranking member Craig?
33:22Yeah, I just like to, this is, certainly want to make sure all my Republican colleagues know this, but high error rates actually are subject to sanctions.
33:32And in fact, USDA fined Alaska $12 million last year for failing to ensure SNAP recipients are eligible.
33:39Pennsylvania was fined as well over the last couple of years.
33:43So, there is a penalty for high error rates in this country.
33:48Last question.
33:49And now there's a reward for them.
33:50Last question I have for Chair Guthrie.
33:53Couldn't, couldn't, of course, didn't want, didn't want you to feel neglected here.
33:56I want to talk about the hospital fee, the provider fees.
34:02Right, right.
34:03I, Reki member McGovern kind of cited to some of the criticism and the concern that the Senate bill that we're now considering,
34:12has elicited from rural hospitals.
34:15That's certainly true in my district.
34:17I think, as you and I maybe talked previously, I represent really large geographic district in Western Colorado,
34:22a lot of rural hospitals, who are deeply concerned that if this bill is signed into law, it's going to be devastating for rural parts of my district.
34:32And I have read similar refrains from folks in Kentucky.
34:37Right.
34:38So, the article that Reki member McGovern quoted, the title is Kentucky Hospitals Leader, excuse me, Kentucky Hospitals Leader Warns Senate Megabill Would Devastate Health Care and the Economy.
34:50And I'll just quote to you two sentences.
34:52The advocacy group for Kentucky Hospitals is sounding the alarm about a massive bill that's near passage in the U.S. Senate,
34:59saying its cuts to Medicaid could cause the closure of hospitals and lost 20,000 jobs.
35:02The Kentucky Hospital Association has changed its tune on the bill since May, when it supported a version that passed the House,
35:09making it an outlier among state and national health care groups.
35:13So, the point here, right, Chairman, is that even those organizations that maybe had a different worldview than mine about the House bill
35:22are now ringing the alarm very loudly, saying there will be rural hospitals that could potentially close in Kentucky and in Colorado.
35:32And I make the same request of you that I made of Chair Arrington.
35:36Why not conference with the Senate and say, you know what, this is untenable.
35:43I'm not going to allow Owensboro Health Twin Lakes Medical Hospital, right, which is one of the hospitals in your district, right,
35:51that just said recently, while we don't know the direct impact any potential changes would have,
35:55we are certain the proposed cuts to Medicaid would harm access to health care not only in Western Kentucky but across the country.
36:01I mean, clearly, this is going to have an impact.
36:04I don't, I just don't think that we can argue, anyone can argue in good faith that it's not going to.
36:09So, so when we, if we all discuss this, and we discussed it in the House, and if you look at provider taxes, it goes back to President Obama.
36:18So, so the Senate version takes it to 3.5% for states that didn't expand, that did expand.
36:25Kentucky is an expansion state.
36:27President Obama had that, that number for a safe harbor for provider taxes within his 2014 budget.
36:34President Biden called it a scam.
36:37I've never called it a scam.
36:38It's, it's a loophole.
36:39It's, it's a loophole.
36:40The provider tax is a loophole.
36:41And I would understand hospitals and, and others that if they can take their money, come
36:46up, match federal money, and bring it back down to the state.
36:49So, we know, we knew that it needed to be addressed.
36:52We chose in the House version to do it with a freeze so that people would have what they had this year for next year.
37:01The Senate has chosen, and we're debating, and we're going to be debating, I'm sure, after we get through this rules meeting,
37:07about where we go with it.
37:08But, if you look at Medicaid policy, a lot of the issues has been that this, particularly now that it's 90-10 for expansion states,
37:17that, that when it was first designed in the 1960s and through most of the time, states run the policy.
37:24It's an open-ended checkbook on the federal government.
37:26But, the discipline has always been that the states have to put their money in as well.
37:31But, now they're able to, to tax the healthcare entities that receive the money.
37:35Some states are actually taxing the, the managed care, Medicaid managed care organizations that receive the money.
37:41And so, it's just become almost an open-ended checkbook on the, on the federal government.
37:45So, it, we're, we're going to debate it and see which way we go.
37:49But, I, I will tell you that it needs to be addressed.
37:52And, and we tend to address it and we'll see where, where we go.
37:57Well, I will stop, yeah.
37:58I'm, I'm, I see that, uh, my time has thrown along here.
38:02So, I appreciate the chairwoman's indulgence.
38:04I'll simply say, there are a lot of rural hospitals that will close if this bill becomes law.
38:11Well, so, so that assumed, but that assumed, because I had some people from Kentucky come to me since you brought Kentucky up and say,
38:16y'all need to make this a priority.
38:18When we were debating whether it was going to cut back, y'all need to make this a priority.
38:21It's people from Kentucky government.
38:22And, so that says, well, and then my answer back to them, why don't you make it a priority?
38:26Because it, so the 3.5% is, is, is the, is the, where the state takes the money to match.
38:33I hear you.
38:34And so, they, they don't have to put any money in their general fund.
38:37So, they're wanting us to make it a priority, which I do make it a priority.
38:39I do make it a priority.
38:40I want my hospitals to be successful, but the state also has to pay their share as well.
38:44And I would just simply say, they're similar to my, the point that I articulated in my colloquy with Chair Arrington.
38:52I think it's be awfully tough.
38:54It's be awfully tough for your members to make the argument that you just made.
38:59I, I hear what you're saying.
39:00I understand you're saying, well, you know, the state may, needs to step up to the plate and so on and so forth.
39:04And state legislatures will have to, that, that, that's an argument that you're obviously entitled to make.
39:08But there's a reason that the House bill didn't include the cut that the Senate bill has now proposed with respect to the rate, to the hospital rate fee.
39:19And so, or excuse me, to the hospital provider rate.
39:22And in my view, I think it's a mistake.
39:24And I, I think it's going to have devastating consequences for rural America.
39:27I yield back.
39:28Thank you, Mr. Neguse.
39:29Mr. Roy, you're recognized.
39:32I thank the Chairwoman.
39:35It is rare indeed that I have too many reasons to agree in this, in this room.
39:40But I do have to go ahead and start with the absurdity of that provision.