H.R. 10357, H.R. 10334, H.R. 6130, H.R. 5439, H.R. 4093, H.R. 10346, and H.R. 10356
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSteven Horsford
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding, and to the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I agree this markup has been a long time coming. After months of work, I'm glad that we're able to come together on a bipartisan agreement addressing digital asset taxation and the inclusion of the wagering loss deduction. I appreciate the members and staff who have worked through these complicated issues and the different perspectives that have helped shape the legislation that's before us today. I also want to explain why I will be voting yes.
Over the past few months, my staff and I have worked diligently with colleagues across the aisle to improve this bill. Through those negotiations, we developed legislation focused on tax administration, consistent treatment, and safeguards against abuse. Now, this bill is not as comprehensive as I would have liked, but I continue to believe that Congress needs to address when mining and staking rewards are recognized as income. This package establishes ordinary income treatment but leaves that timing question unresolved. So there's more work to do.
But we also have an opportunity to address gaps in the tax code now. We are establishing basic tax rules for digital assets, we're applying principles already used for comparable financial assets, and we're including requirements intended to prevent abuse while making tax obligations clearer.
To me, the details matter. For everyday transactions, the package provides specific treatment for qualifying dollar stablecoins and small network and transaction fees. For charitable contributions, it strengthens the requirements for establishing the value of certain digital assets, including requiring a cash sale followed by a donation of the proceeds in specified circumstances. It also extends existing provisions addressing wash sales and constructive and constructive sales to certain digital asset transactions. These provisions reflect the work that went into this agreement.
They address practical questions about how taxpayers report transactions and how established tax principles apply as technology evolves. Now, members have raised fair questions about the scope of this legislation and the issues that it leaves unresolved. I respect those concerns, many of them from my side of the aisle. Our responsibility, though, is to examine the legislation before us and to work together to improve it, and that is what we have sought to do here. The package establishes rules in several areas while leaving other questions for further consideration.
Today's vote does not end that work, and I'm committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to make those improvements. I also want to highlight a provision that I've championed for the past year, my bipartisan Full House Act with my colleague Representative Max Miller. This provision corrects the wagering loss deduction that can create a phantom tax liability for people who have no net wagering winnings. Under the current 90% limitation, someone with $10,000 in winnings and $10,000 in losses could deduct only 9%, $9,000 of those losses. That leaves $1,000 in taxable wagering income even though the person broke even.
The Full House Act restores the long-standing rule allowing taxpayers to deduct 100% of their wagering losses up to the amount of their winnings, subject to the applicable deduction requirements. It does not allow taxpayers to deduct losses beyond their winnings. It restores the rule that existed before last year's change. For Nevada and other states, this issue has significance beyond an individual tax return. Gaming is central to our economy, and for workers and families throughout my district, they depend on it, including union workers.
That is why I have worked with my colleagues across the aisle on this correction. My concern is the practical effect of this tax provision on taxpayers and the gaming economy that supports so many Nevada livelihoods. We should have a tax code that does not tax people on money they did not actually earn. That is a basic principle of fairness. So in closing, this agreement addresses tax administration, the treatment of comparable financial activities, safeguards against abuse, and the restoration of the wagering loss deduction.
It is not the final word on digital asset taxation. Congress will continue to address unresolved questions, including the timing of mining and staking income and the new technologies that will continue to change our economy. But this bill represents progress on many issues that we have spent months working through. I am proud of that work, and I appreciate everyone who contributed to its agreement.
I will be voting yes, and I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield the balance of my time.
Jason Smith
Thank you, Mr. Horsford. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H.R. 10357, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment.
I will now turn to Tom Barthold, Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.
Tom Barthold
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The members of the committee have before them four Joint Committee documents describing the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act. JCX-47 and 48 describe the underlying legislation, and on the green sheets, JCX-50 and 52 describe the chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment in the nature of substitute clarifies that the effective date for several of the provisions in the underlying bill that were stated with respect to the date of introduction is made clear that that effective date is Monday, September 14th, 2020, 2026. This is relevant for the extension of the wash sale rules that are generally applicable to stock and other securities to digital asset transactions, the extension of the present law constructive sale rules that are applicable to appreciated financial positions to trading in digital assets, and similarly to the application of the present law straddle rules also would apply to digital assets.
It's also perhaps important to note in this legislation, since there are numerous provisions, that the many provisions have different effective dates. In some cases, this is to allow both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service time to establish systems to comply with the legislation. For example, the establishment of the de minimis exception of no gain or loss recognized with respect to the payment of network fees and certain transaction fees paid with respect to digital assets is effective for dispositions after December 31st of 2027, and so not effective in generally until into 2028. While on the other hand, permitting dealers and traders in digital assets to apply mark-to-market accounting for income is effective for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment. So if enacted this year, would be effective for taxable years essentially beginning in 2027.
Also note that the restoration of the prior law provision allowing gambling losses to offset winnings dollar for dollar is retroactive to tax years beginning after December 31st of 2025, so effective for income, for gambling losses recognized during the current calendar year. The staff of the Joint Committee has estimated that the overall budgetary effect for the period fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year 2036 would be to raise approximately $500 million. That concludes a brief description of the chairman's amendment in the nature of substitute and the underlying legislation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the members might have.
Jason Smith
Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Mr. Carey.
Mike Carey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barthold, it has been suggested to me that section 401 of this bill, which provides for income from digital asset validation supporting activities shall be treated as ordinary income, necessarily requires the conclusion that a receipt of the digital assets from mining or staking is income. Our intention is that nothing in this bill addresses the timing of income related to staking or mining rewards, explicitly and implicitly, or implicitly, rather. My understanding that is under this rule in section 401(b) is drafted so that to only address the character of such income without any proper or any impact on the timing of such income. So I just want to make sure I'm clear with this, Mr. Barthold, in your view, is my understanding of this bill on this point correct?
Speaker 9
Yes, Mr. Carey, just to briefly restate, section 401(b), as you noted, provides that income from digital asset validation supporting activities such as mining, staking, is treated as ordinary income. But section 401(b) does not address what the timing of mining or staking income should be.
Mike Carey
Okay, so all right, so it's been suggested to me by some that the defined term tokenized digital assets literally includes every digital asset because all digital assets have value that is related to or correlated to something other than the blockchain that it is on, such as the economy at large. So our intention is that term tokenized digital asset and addresses fact patterns where a digital asset represents ownership interest in something other than the digital asset, such as a tokenized soybeans or tokenized real estate or tokenized stocks or bonds. So is my understanding again, is my understanding correct that the term tokenized digital asset does not include every digital asset?
Tom Barthold
Mr. Carey, yes, maybe just to walk through the definition again. The term tokenized digital asset means any digital asset other than qualified stablecoins if more than an insignificant portion of the value of the digital asset is derived from anything other than the operation of the cryptographically secured distributed ledger on which the digital asset is recorded. Digital assets then are defined more broadly as any digital representation of value which is recorded on the cryptographically secured distributed ledger or similar technology. And so there are digital assets that are not tokenized digital assets. And the staff's understanding of the member's intent is that native digital assets such as a bitcoin derive their value from the operation of the distributed ledger on which they're recorded.
And so in that case, it would not appear that they would meet the definition of tokenized digital asset.
Speaker 4
Right. So Mr. Barthold, the short answer is yes. Okay, okay, well, I think you've answered all my questions, Mr. Barthold, so with that, I yield back.
Mr. Doggett.
Lloyd Doggett
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Barthold, good morning. I'm greatly concerned about crypto being used by foreign governments, by large corporations, by billionaires to pay what are essentially bribes to public officials, even at the highest level of our government.
On the tax side, since that's what we're concerned with this morning, is there anything this bill that would limit the ability of foreign governments and others to make these kind of payments?
Tom Barthold
Mr. Doggett, the legislation is generally addressing issues such as extension of wash sale rules, straddle rules, where the legislation is essentially saying that digital assets and digital asset transactions are treated like securities, or in some cases like commodity transactions. So there's nothing on point to the issue that you raised.
Lloyd Doggett
Thank you. And it has been described by its supporters as a very broad bill. I know that in April, the Treasury Department issued a warning about the laundering of Iranian oil proceeds through crypto networks. Is there anything in the bill that will prevent or limit that from continuing to happen?
Lloyd Doggett
Okay. And by one estimate, 154 billion dollars in dirty money flowed through crypto wallets last year, which was an amazing tripling of the 59 billion dollars that flowed through them the prior year. Is there anything here to prevent or limit the continued use of crypto by criminals?
Speaker 13
I assume then there's also nothing in this bill to prevent President Trump, who's pocketed about 2.3 billion dollars from crypto, from continuing to make billions more.
Tom Barthold
Again, this legislation's about how we recognize, how we recognize income, how wash sales are treated, other transactions, but nothing in term that changes the ability of individuals to invest and perhaps earn profits from digital assets.
Ms. Chu.
Judy Chu
Mr. Barthold, I have concerns about the de minimis exemption for network or gas fees being very, very costly, in fact 2.3 billion dollars. And in fact, I'm in possession of a letter from a large group of groups, Americans for Tax Fairness, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, National Education Association, who state that we have strong concerns that a de minimis exemption for network or gas fees does not represent parity with other similar assets. For example, a construction worker or childcare provider cannot use untaxed capital or labor income to pay an ATM fee. According to the JCT, the provision is also extremely costly with no measurable benefit to anyone who is not a wealthy crypto owner. Can you walk us through how this network transaction fee works in the first place and why it would end up being so costly, 2.3 billion dollars to our federal income?
Tom Barthold
Ms. Chu, there are two components that you noted. There's network fees, and these are fees that are incurred in the validation of digital asset transactions on the network. And then the legislation also provides certain transaction fees, such as brokerage fees or other fees incurred in enabling the sale or transfer of assets. De minimis in this context is described as less than ten dollars. How the staff derived the estimate is looking at projected trading in digital assets, and as was noted earlier, there's been substantial growth in trading of assets.
As, as you noted, uh, this, the legislation permits someone to use a digital asset to pay these fees without recognizing any gain that there may be on those assets. There has been substantial growth in the value of, uh, digital assets, so, uh, many taxpayers holding digital assets who may be trading over the next, uh, 10 years of the budget, budget window, uh, will have gain. And to the extent that the fees incurred, uh, to do, uh, the network validation or the brokerage fees are less than $10, no gain, also no loss in the case of taxpayers who have a loss. And that's, and that's the basis of the estimate.
Judy Chu
Right, and this network transaction fee de minimis exemption therefore is not in parity with other similar assets, as I pointed out with the ATM fee.
Judy Chu
Okay, I also want to ask about the fact that your estimate for the bill that we, uh, had a legislative hearing on, uh, was 1.66 billion in June, but this time with this bill, the cost to our American taxpayers is 2.5 billion. What increased the cost of this bill to the American taxpayers? And, uh, the Tax Law Center, uh, said that this is a subsidy for validation services. Is that correct?
Tom Barthold
Uh, well, Ms. Chu, to the, to the first, uh, the first point, the legislation that the committee reviewed in its hearing, uh, in June, uh, only, uh, provided a de minimis rule for, uh, the network, uh, the network fees. So the current legislation before the committee, uh, has expanded de minimis to include the, uh, certain transaction fees such as, de minimis transaction fees such as the brokerage fees. So the primary reason for the, uh, different estimate is we're looking at a broader application of de minimis, de minimis fees.
Jason Smith
Are there additional technical questions about the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seen none, we will move to strike the last word. Does any member wish to strike the last word? Mr. Smith.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. I certainly want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Miller and Mr. Horsford, for their leadership on the bipartisan work which has gotten us to this point. I know a lot has gone into that and I appreciate the diligent efforts of my colleagues. I'm proud that the work of this committee has been done to propose clear, common sense rules of the road for digital assets.
Americans are increasingly investing in, trading, and using digital assets, and our tax code needs to keep pace. This legislative package provides greater certainty, increases parity between digital assets and traditional financial assets, and removes unnecessary compliance burdens which make it difficult for everyday Americans to participate in this fast, fast-growing part of our economy. If we want America to remain the crypto, crypto capital of the world, we need a tax code which encourages innovation and investment here at home. If we do fail to act, innovators, investors, and certainly consumers will continue to face an unclear and unpredictable tax landscape.
This legislation is an important step toward delivering clarity and strengthening American leadership in digital currency. I'm glad to support this bipartisan effort, certainly urge my colleagues to support it as well. I yield back.
Mr. Doggett.
Lloyd Doggett
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come from deep in the heart of Texas, and of all the problems that my neighbors down there talk about, soaring prices at the gas pump and the grocery store from Trumpflation, his tariff tax and his reckless war in Iran, concerns about his authoritarian moves that threaten our democracy, concern about his blatant corruption, I've not had anyone come up to me and say, you know what this committee really ought to prioritize is new tax breaks and loopholes for the crypto industry. Once again, this committee makes very clear that while it ignores the real needs of ordinary Americans that are suffering from failed Trump policies, it eagerly responds to moneyed interests with the strongest lobbyists and the biggest political action committees. There's nothing new or innovative about crypto. Over 17 years it's been around and despite extensive promotion at the Super Bowl and otherwise, Gallup poll last year indicated that only 14% of US adults own crypto.
There's no reason that Congress needs to craft this legislation gifting the crypto industry new tax breaks. And while some of the worst tax giveaways that were in the original bill have been omitted, this bill, and only for now since we hear of this is just the first step, this bill still bestows billions in tax breaks for the crypto industry, benefiting billionaire crypto whales and some of the richest Americans like the Trump family. I agree with my former Austin neighbor Ben McKenzie turned crypto critic when he says that cryptocurrency functions as either Ponzi schemes speculation or as a tool for fraud, blackmail, speculation, money laundering, tax evasion or sanctions evasion. It's a contention that he made very effectively in his book Easy Money and his documentary film Everyone Is Lying To You From Money. Mr. Chairman, you talk about bringing clarity to this debate.
Well, yesterday the Senate considered the clarity bill and rejected it. This committee remains the only place in Congress that's rushing to provide favors to this industry. Crypto poses the same danger to our banking system as kryptonite did to Superman. By stacking the deck in favor of crypto with special rules and loopholes, resources are being directed away from our community banks toward a minimally regulated crypto industry devoted to get-rich schemes. It is a serious mistake to gamble with the future of our financial system and the American economy.
Nor does this bill do anything about Trump crypto corruption. Instead, it would give the crypto industry preferential treatment, not workers or small businesses nor manufacturers. Just crypto. Under this bill, someone speculating with crypto can pay the fees on their own trades with appreciated property and never pay tax on the income. No one else in the economy can do that.
If you're a construction worker, you pay the ATM fee with dollars on which you've already been taxed. This bill calls for parity. Well, parity for whom? The crypto industry insists that crypto is a great investment. But actually, you know, the crypto industry itself has found a much better place to invest its dollars and get greater returns.
The quarter of a billion dollars that crypto-related PACs spent during the 2024 election cycle accounted for about half of all corporate money expenditures on campaigns in this country. Crypto is questionable, but the industry's money talks, talks loudly and effectively. They funded super PACs, they backed candidates and they got results, so many who did not benefit directly are intimidated by the possibility that crypto will be out there spending a fortune in their next primary election. As to the claim that crypto should be made usable for everyday currency to help function as an alternative to money, those who hold crypto are not running down to the coffee shop to pay with crypto for a latte.
They don't use it with Bitcoin that way. They hoard it or they trade it as a speculative investment, which it is. Mr. Chairman, the committee should be focused on the real problems that we face as Americans: lowering healthcare costs, making housing affordable, helping families afford childcare, not gambling with crypto. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter from a large number of organizations, including the National Education Association, SEIU, and many groups like Citizens for Tax Fairness opposing this particular bill.
Without objection.
Mr. Kelly.
Mike Kelly
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue and for including my bill, Charitable Deductions for Digital Asset Donations Act, in today's markup. But before I go on, Mr. Barthold, I've had a chance to sit in this committee for a while and I want to thank you and your team for what you do. I've often told you the talents that you have, I'm sure if you had gone into the private sector, the revenue that you would have gained would have been much greater than what you're doing here. Plus the fact, trying to explain difficult things to people who are more focused on the politics instead of the policy. So tens of millions of Americans now use digital assets every day.
These markets are no longer hypothetical. Our economy depends on a modernized, agile, and principled tax code, a code that does not stand in the way of new ways of doing business. It is the constitutional responsibility of this committee to ensure the tax code keeps up with the times. The Digital Assets Tax Certainty Act advances the goals of stability, neutrality, and simplicity, not special treatment. Today, many tax rules that apply to traditional financial assets do not apply to digital assets simply because this asset class did not exist when many of these provisions of the code were written.
That uncertainty and compliance burdens for taxpayers, businesses, and the IRS. When digital assets function similarly to traditional assets, taxpayers should be able to rely on familiar tax framework that produce predictable results. One area where this principle is particularly clear is in charitable giving. For more than a century, the charitable deduction has encouraged Americans to support the missions of churches, charities, schools, universities, and foundations across this incredible nation. By lowering the after-tax cost of giving, the deduction helps leverage greater private support for the organizations that strengthen our communities.
America is really well served when we promote habits of giving across all taxpayers and all asset classes. When Americans contribute to local churches, to food banks, or youth programs, they help those who are in need and strengthen the very fabric of our society. The tax code should not stand in the way of that generosity. The charitable deduction ensures that private citizens, not the federal government, decide which organizations and causes deserve their support. That is why I introduced the Charitable Deductions for Digital Asset Donations Act.
The legislation would treat widely traded digital assets similarly to public traded stock by removing burdensome appraisal requirements where reliable market values are readily available. It also maintains guardrails to prevent abuse from bad actors and speculative assets.
Now, Chairman, I want to thank you again for this leadership and and also including the provision in the broader digital assets tax certainty. I know when we do this work on Ways and Means and I don't want to belabor this too much. I don't think there's anything that that most of us are concerned with. And I would just tell you this, I've been in business all my life. I would never do my own taxes.
I just I simply can't handle that. I don't mind paying taxes when we're profitable. I also don't mind paying wage taxes and property taxes and everything else even when we're not able to make a profit. But we still participate in funding this incredible this incredible experiment we have in this in this nation. So everything that we do and sometimes we get we get caught up in the politics of this and not the policy.
Mr. Barthold, again, you, your team, and what you do to try to explain how this works. I I will tell you what, I hope I'm the only one in this room that I am absolutely appalled by the fact that we use acronyms and codes and that people we have this bobblehead society says, yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about. And I always turn to my colleagues and said, that that's that's interesting, would you explain it to me because I don't have a freaking idea what the hell we're talking about. The one thing I do know, we are taxed and taxed and taxed again. And the question is always since we can't spend money the way a private citizen would do, but we continue to go deeper deeper in debt.
I think we're at forty trillion dollars, but who's counting? The work that you've done, the work that this committee does, I hope we would step outside the the red team, blue team and take a look at who is providing all the money and who is co-signing every single loan that we have out there and debt that we have, hardworking American taxpayers. So I want to thank the Chairman for doing this today. People who who use this asset to help fund charitable things. What's more American than that?
So thank you all for what you do. And I want to thank both both sides of the aisle, by the way. I think we're all we all think the same way. The only problem is when we get in public, we've got to separate because the country's so polarized over red and blue. We forget that we represent the greatest nation the world's ever seen and we're actually red, white, and blue.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
Mike Thompson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. The American people are likely asking why we aren't marking up legislation that would address the cost of living crisis that they're facing. And that's a fair question and one that the majority will need to answer for. In the meantime, we have a responsibility to ensure that these technologies are properly regulated.
Digital assets are here. Cryptocurrency is not a passing fad and this technology is not going to disappear. For too long, digital assets have operated under tax rules that were written well before this technology existed. That's created uncertainty for taxpayers and opportunities for abuse. I concur with my colleague Mr. Doggett in his comments regarding some of those abuses and those potential for abuses.
This bill is not perfect. There are provisions which we would have written differently and this legislation is only one part of the broader framework that Congress must establish. But the negotiated bill before us, I believe, is substantially better than where this process began. And I want to thank specifically Mr. Horsford for the great work that he's done on this and working to represent his constituent in the great way that he has. The bill does not create a sweeping new exemption allowing people to spend appreciated cryptocurrency tax-free.
It preserves ordinary income treatment for staking and for mining. It applies long-standing wash sale rules to digital assets so investors cannot use cryptocurrency to exploit loopholes. It also protects the charitable tax base, closes opportunities to shift pre-existing gains into territorial tax shelters, and requires taxpayers participating in the voluntary disclosure program to report their violations and pay the taxes, interest, and applicable penalties that they owe. These are meaningful improvements. Again, they don't go far enough, but they're meaningful improvements.
It preserves ordinary income treatment for staking and for mining. It applies long-standing wash sale rules to digital assets so investors cannot use cryptocurrency to exploit loopholes.
They reflect a straightforward principle: new technology should not receive a free pass from the basic rules that apply to everyone else. This debate should serve as a lesson for how Congress needs to address technological change, such as artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is advancing even faster than digital assets. It's already transformed the workplace, our schools, healthcare, national security, financial markets, and the information Americans see every day. AI can create extraordinary opportunities, but it can also displace workers, invade privacy, facilitate fraud, and cause significant dangers to society.
Yet Congress has failed to enact meaningful guardrails, and Speaker Johnson has shown no interest in keeping Congress in session to address these issues, notwithstanding some of the major AI leaders in the country calling on us to do just that. We can't govern by waiting for powerful technologies to cause harm and then asking why no one acted sooner. We cannot allow the companies developing these systems to write the rules for themselves. And we cannot pretend that supporting innovation requires Congress to abandon its responsibility to protect the American people. We have a job, we have a duty.
This bill should not be the end of our work on digital assets. It should be the beginning of Congress taking these responsibilities seriously, and we should bring that same urgency to artificial intelligence. I intend to support this bill today because, as I said, I think it puts us in a better spot than where we are today, but we've got a lot more work to do. And Mr. Chairman, I hope we get to doing that work. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Estes.
Ron Estes
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. You know, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10357, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act. When this committee held its hearing in June, I said the tax code never envisioned these technologies and their application. Digital assets were forced into rules that were never intended for them.
The result is a lack of clarity and parity and legal uncertainty that prevents further investment and adoption by the wider public. The lack of a clear framework only helps foreign adversaries like China, who want to replace U.S. financial leadership. Congress must set the standards so capital, innovation, and jobs stay in America. The system now is the equivalent of a highway with no guardrails to keep cars from running in the ditch. If we don't establish the clear rules of the road to provide certainty, accidents will continue to happen.
I'm proud to say that thanks to the hard work of this committee, the bill gives us clear rules of the road. It provides certainty, consistency, and simplicity that this industry needs.
Speaker 21
Take the common sense fixes to the reporting requirements for everyday crypto use. For the 2025 tax year, the IRS required hundreds of millions of 1099-DA forms for crypto transactions. According to brokers, half of those forms were for transactions less than $10. That's a mountain of red tape that doesn't protect against tax avoidance or abuse. It just stifles everyday commerce and innovation.
With this bill, if you pay a digital asset fee of $10 or less, it won't trigger reporting gain or loss. Additionally, brokers won't have to report those fees one transaction at a time. This makes the system work better and faster for everyone involved and eases the burden on taxpayers, brokers, and the IRS alike. The bill also provides parity for crypto with traditional finance. Right now, the long-standing wash sale and constructive sale rules prevent protect traditional securities from abuse and tax avoidance.
These rules currently don't apply to digital assets because they were written before crypto existed. This bill extends those rules so digital assets aren't treated better or worse than similar financial transactions. The bill also clarifies the tax treatment of mining and staking income. This unique aspect of how crypto can be earned and created needs legal certainty in the tax code. Without this certainty, new innovations will be stifled.
This bill establishes a way forward. I want to thank Chairman Smith for his leadership on this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 10357. I yield back my time.
Mr. Davis.
Danny Davis
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the last year, over 190,000 Illinoisans lost their healthcare due to the Republican healthcare disaster. In the last week or so, 700,000 Illinoisans learned that they will lose or could lose their health insurance in the very near future due to the Republican healthcare disaster. Health insurance premiums have doubled for almost 400,000 Illinoisans due to the Republican healthcare disaster. And the average household in Illinois has had to pay an additional $4,700 more for goods and services due to the rising cost under President Trump.
Yet today, the Republican leadership decided that we needed to spend billions of dollars to help crypto bros. Families deserve action to help meet their basic needs. The billions of dollars in spending in this bill could have helped families with the high cost of childcare by increasing the childcare entitlement to states. It could have helped farmers, small businesses, and families afford health insurance by restoring the ACA tax credits. It could have helped all parents with the high cost of Trump's economy by restoring the 2021 enhanced child tax credit.
A tiny fraction of the billions in this bill could have delivered an historic investment to older foster youth for college or housing or services for teen parents. But the Republican leadership refused to do anything to help the regular worker, farmer, parent, or small business owner, instead prioritizing the crypto industry. Also, I am deeply concerned about a Republican rush to limit taxes on crypto when President Trump, his children, and his cronies are profiting daily from crypto.
A rush to action now when most Americans are struggling seems like an effort to grow the President's wealth since it is not meeting the urgent needs of regular people. I thank my friend Steve Horsford for his outstanding work to improve this bill and to lead thoughtful and fair digital asset tax policy. However, I strongly believe that moving this bill ignores the struggles of Americans and fails to meet the real needs of our constituents. I do not believe that this bill helps lower the cost of food or fuel or strengthens our economy. And I yield back.
Mr. LaHood.
Darin LaHood
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act, H.R. 10357, is built around the idea of tax parity. When digital assets serve the same economic purpose as traditional financial assets, they should generally be treated the same way for tax purposes. The bill brings digital assets into established tax frameworks where appropriate. It extends securities lending rules to qualifying digital asset loans, provides mark-to-market treatment for eligible dealers and traders, creates a trading safe harbor similar to those for stocks and commodities, and allows simplified accounting for certain widely traded digital assets.
These provisions reduce unnecessary compliance burdens while giving businesses and taxpayers greater clarity. Just as importantly, this bill applies existing anti-abuse rules to digital assets where appropriate. The goal is straightforward: a fair, predictable, and technology-neutral tax code that treats comparable assets consistently. Unfortunately, we're starting to see a very different approach at the state level, including my home state of Illinois. Illinois recently enacted the Digital Asset Tax that takes effect next year.
This law in Illinois imposes a 0.2% tax on digital asset transactions, including exchanges, transfers, and storage, including when a trade loses money or when assets are transferred between two accounts owned by the same individual. This would be like the government imposing a tax every time you transferred money from your savings account to your checking account, even though you haven't made money on that purchase. This is fundamentally different from the approach we're taking with this legislation here today, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act. At the federal level, we're working towards parity between digital assets and comparable traditional financial assets. Illinois is moving in the opposite direction by imposing a separate transaction-based tax on digital asset activity.
We should be asking whether it makes sense to tax a digital asset transaction simply because it uses different technology than a comparable traditional financial transaction, particularly when that transaction may not involve any economic gain at all. I believe our tax code should encourage innovation, provide certainty, and treat taxpayers fairly. This legislation here today is an important step towards that goal. But as states pursue policies that depart from tax parity like the Illinois law, we may need to consider whether additional federal action is necessary to ensure that we have a consistent national framework for digital assets. Our goal should be straightforward: a tax code that is fair, clear, and supports American innovation and competitiveness.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back.
Linda Sánchez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by commending my colleague Congressman Horsford for leading the charge on this bipartisan compromise. Throughout the year, my colleagues and I have advocated for legislation that puts digital assets at parity with other financial markets, and I believe that the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act does exactly that. I especially want to thank Congressman Horsford and Chairman Smith for including the charitable giving provisions that I brought forward. This provision will ensure that bad actors can't take advantage of charities by using volatile tokens or claiming deductions that are larger than the value of the actual donation.
Ms. Sanchez.
Linda Sánchez
Requiring these assets to be converted to cash before taking a charitable deduction prevents bad actors from using charity for their own gain. Some previous iterations of this bill included preferential treatment for digital assets, like the ability to defer taxation and a lack of anti-abuse rules. I was glad to see that this bill curbs potential abuse and ensures that digital asset users pay their fair share. Over the past few years, we've seen unprecedented corruption from friends of the Trump administration in the digital asset space. I believe that this legislation, while not a perfect solution by any means, does go a long way to safeguard these bad actors from continuing to defraud the American people.
Current tax treatment of digital assets is messy and places a huge administrative burden on the IRS. This bill creates clear guidelines for the treatment of mining and staking income and provides much-needed clarification to the entire digital asset industry. For these reasons, I'm voting yes, and I hope that my colleagues will consider supporting this compromise legislation as well. As I said before, it is not a perfect bill, but it does leave room for further improvement in the future. Thank you, and I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Hern.
Kevin Hern
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whether you believe that the digital asset industry and the blockchain are the next technological breakthrough for financial services industry, or you have the belief that it's just digital tulip mania, one thing is for sure: the digital asset industry is a multi-trillion dollar market hovering around the same market capitalization as Amazon with no clear set of tax rules. The Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act is a step in the right direction, providing a clear set of tax rules and the guidelines for how we administer digital assets. The bill before us today closes loopholes in our tax code by applying existing tax anti-abuse rules to digital assets, creating parity with other financial products. The Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act also provides certainty that owners and users of digital assets face appropriate tax compliance burdens while ensuring clear administrability for the IRS.
I'm proud of the work this committee has done to get this bill ready for markup, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the final passage of this very important piece of legislation. I yield back.
Ms. Sewell.
Terri Sewell
I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, every day crypto is becoming a larger part of our economy, and this committee has a responsibility to create rules of the road so that consumers and businesses are provided with clear and fair tax rules. Moreover, we need to ensure that the United States remains a leader in technological innovation while also making sure that these new technologies don't sidestep the IRS.
First I want to thank our colleague Mr. Horsford, Congressman Horsford, who has been laser focused on finding a bipartisan compromise on this bill. While no bill is perfect, I believe the legislation before us is a big step in the right direction. In this bill, we successfully removed the deferral regime for staking and mining and we limit the de minimis exemption. We shut down the Puerto Rico tax shelters and we create a charitable valuation fix by linking tax benefits to real economic value. To be clear, more work needs to be done.
The American people are outraged that President Trump and his friends have been making million, no, billions off of their crypto schemes while prices continue to rise for hardworking Americans all across this nation. While my constituents are paying record prices for gas and groceries, President Trump made over 1.4 billion dollars from crypto scheme just last year. The level of corruption coming from this administration is unprecedented and I wish my Republican colleagues would join us in supporting legislation that forces President Trump and elected officials from using crypto to profit from their position of power. However, I believe that this bill before us is a step in the right direction towards providing tax certainty around crypto without creating special treatment and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's get this bill passed so that this committee can focus on the important issues facing working American families like the skyrocketing prices of healthcare, gas, and groceries.
I yield back.
David Kustoff
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and I do appreciate you holding this markup today and considering the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act. And I'm also appreciative that it includes the bill that I've worked on, the Providing Analogous Rules for Digital Assets Act or what's known as the PAR Act. I don't think there's any doubt that the tax code has not kept pace with the way digital assets are used today. I think we can all agree on that. Americans should not need a team of lawyers or accountants to understand the tax consequences of everyday digital asset activity.
There's a lot of confusion. And that's where this bill comes in because it does make common sense and bring more common sense to the system. It makes small transaction fees easier to handle. It creates more practical reporting and accounting rules. And it provides clearer treatment for lending, staking, mining, and other routine activity.
The PAR Act provisions apply familiar tax concepts to digital assets where they make sense. A qualifying loan should be treated as a loan, not as a taxable sale just because it involves a digital asset. Likewise, Mr. Chairman, professional market participants should have access to appropriate accounting rules and foreign investors should have clear standards when using independent US intermediaries. It's not a carve out, it's not a special favor, it's an effort to make the rules more understandable, more consistent, just easier. So this bill gives taxpayers clear guidance.
It supports responsible innovation and it helps ensure that American businesses can build and invest right here at home. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding today's markup and I'll yield back.
Thank you Mr. Boyle.
Brendan Boyle
Yeah thank you Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your efforts on this piece of legislation. Also want to thank my friend Mr. Horsford who for many, many months has diligently worked on this issue and I can testify to that.
I also want to thank Mr. Horsford's staff and my staff, who for many months were going back and forth on this. Really an excellent job, and I know just how much work was put into this. Now, in terms of the substance of the bill, much of what I was planning to say was already said by the brilliant Ms. Sewell. So, I will not prove the wisdom of the line that everything has been said, but not everyone has said it, and I will not fall into that trap and simply just say this. This is really maybe the first or second inning of the work that this committee and Congress needs to do when it comes to crypto and the blockchain writ large.
I think this is very good, solid work. No one thinks that it is a panacea, but we also can't bury our heads in the sand. We want to make sure the United States is a leader in this realm. So with that, having only used a minute twenty, proud to support this legislation, and I yield back.
That is efficiency, Mr. Boyle. Thank you. Mr. Arrington.
Jodey Arrington
And now for inefficiency, Mr. Chairman. These are a little longer than I would like to give, but I do think this is a very important subject matter, and I'm grateful for the Chairman's leadership and our ranking member and my Democrat colleagues, all of us working to provide much-needed tax certainty and clarity for America's growing digital asset economy. There's no question digital assets are transforming the financial services industry and creating new opportunities for American consumers, businesses, and investors. Since the launch of Bitcoin in 2009, the digital asset market has exploded, reaching a market value of approximately three trillion dollars. In my district alone, over 4,600 small businesses in West Texas have Bitcoin payments enabled and are ready to accept it.
Today, the United States accounts for roughly 38% of global Bitcoin mining activity and an expected 18% of worldwide digital asset revenue in 2026. This is remarkable growth, and America should lead the world in digital asset innovation. But in order to do this, we need certainty and parity in the tax code. The fact is that our tax laws have not kept pace with this rapidly evolving industry, and in some cases, outdated and unclear rules create unnecessary burdens for taxpayers and businesses. In others, gaps in the tax code create opportunities for abuse and undermine parity with traditional financial assets.
That's why the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act is so important. It provides greater certainty for taxpayers, reduces unnecessary compliance burdens, and establishes a more consistent tax framework for digital assets. I'm especially pleased that this legislation includes my Applying Existing Tax Anti-Abuse Rules to Digital Assets Act, which is a mouthful. Today, digital assets are exempt from certain anti-abuse rules that are already applying to other investment assets, creating loopholes that undermine parity and equal treatment under the law. This legislation closes those loopholes by applying the same common-sense safeguards that already apply to similar traditional financial assets.
And I won't bore you with wash sales and constructive sales for dummies, Mr. Chairman, because I have perfected for dummies that articulation and illustration. But I'll just say that these are not new taxes, and I think that's important. They're not new taxes. And this is not about regulating digital assets more heavily. These are long-standing common-sense anti-abuse rules that already apply to comparable investments.
That means more innovation, more investment, more economic growth here at home, and again, helping ensure America, not China, remains the crypto capital of the world. I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman, and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Beyer.
Donald Beyer
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate you and your staff for working across the aisle on the bill before us today, and I'm really thankful for Mr. Horsford's hard work and leadership through this process. This legislation is a substantial improvement from the measure we considered in our committee earlier this year. Some of the more egregious giveaways to the digital asset industry have been sanded down or removed altogether, and I'm particularly happy to see the inclusion of improved language that will limit the ability of taxpayers from using Puerto Rico or other US territories as venues for tax evasion. However, despite these improvements, I cannot support this legislation at this time.
Simply put, this bill does not exist in a vacuum. Most Americans, for good reason, associate digital assets and cryptocurrencies with fraud, instability, illicit finance, and most of all, corruption. Every day we're confronted with story after story of malfeasance of all types, either enabled or worsened by the increasing ubiquity of digital assets in the global economy. The promises that crypto boosters have made over the years, that greater digital asset adoption would somehow lead to lower costs, higher financial inclusion, more transparency, and so on, have all been unmet. Instead of this utopian vision, the reality of crypto that most Americans experience is darker, much darker.
Unfortunately, the fact is that the digital asset marketplace is dominated by bad actors, and none more so than the current occupants of the White House and his family. Through their various cryptocurrency ventures like World Liberty Financial and the Trump-branded meme coin, the Trump family has amassed billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains coming in part from foreign governments, criminals, and wealthy donors, all through crypto. And hundreds of millions of these dollars are flowing through the president's political apparatus and flow in the airwaves to attack his political opponents. The crypto industry has been weaponized to corrupt our presidency. In exchange, this administration has worked hard to water down or eliminate regulations aimed at protecting consumers while also halting prosecutions of numerous crypto fraudsters.
And most of all, the president's been focused on ensuring that he can continue to personally rake in massive cryptocurrency profits without any accountability. Just look at what happened yesterday in the Senate, where the Clarity Act, a digital asset market structure bill, failed due to the president's desire to avoid any restrictions on his ability to benefit from his own crypto holdings. Even the most basic ethics requirements, limiting the president and other senior government officials from profiting from the policies they oversee, were onerous to him. The close relationship between the president and cryptocurrency and his relentless profit-seeking while in office is doing the industry no favors in the long term. This staggering level of corruption is unprecedented in our history and leaves our nation extremely vulnerable, to say nothing of the more mundane criminal activity enabled by crypto, which inflicts a heavy cost on the American people every single day.
I do not believe we should proceed with legislation that would further embed this industry into our economic life and republic until we can get a handle on these most pressing and immediate challenges. With that, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Moore.
Blake Moore
I move to strike the last word. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just briefly talk about the inclusion of the Full House Act as part of this package. While I appreciate the efforts to make this digital asset bill, the digital asset bill that I think is very, very important, I appreciate the aspect to making this bipartisan, I am opposed to including this provision.
Since the Supreme Court overturned PASPA in 2018, the floodgates have opened for states to legalize new forms of gambling and sports betting. Americans are wagering 30 times the amount of money this year than they were just eight years ago. And that's a jump from $5 billion a year, which is already a staggering number, to $150 billion a year. Sincerely, what are we doing as a society? The courts have allowed Kalshi to essentially turn their business into a gambling enterprise and have greenlit the growth of prediction markets for blatant gambling.
These rulings have disproportionately affected boys and men of all ages. It's accessible to all, but this has disproportionately affected the male population. Boys have fallen behind in school by most measurements, and men are facing declining opportunities in the workforce. And gambling is turning daily routines for millions to millions of Americans. We're seeing decreasing credit scores and credit card limits, and families are coming apart.
Rather than empowering men or providing paths to success, we are enabling the vices and platforms that explicitly seek to addict them and keep them down. In Utah, we're taking this head-on, challenging prediction markets in the courts and winning. And I've drafted legislation to create new guardrails for online gambling. Mr. Chairman, any movement on the Full House Act should be paired with a serious conversation about the rise of gambling and actions on prediction markets, online gambling advertising penalties, and so much more. This cannot be the last action the committee takes on this topic, and we have to do better by Americans for this growing vice.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work done on digital assets, and I would love to partner with you on opportunities to ensure our tax code is supporting a healthy and productive society. And with that, I yield back.
Rudy Yakym
Additional members wish to strike the last word? Mr. Yakym.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. In 2025, digital asset market capitalization totaled $3 trillion. An estimate showed that up to 30% of American adults own digital assets. The digital asset industry is continuing to grow and evolve, and it's important that our tax code do the same. Under the current tax code, digital asset owners face incredible uncertainty, higher administrative burdens, and unclear guidelines.
Furthermore, traditional financial assets must adhere to strict anti-abuse rules that are currently not applied to digital assets. That creates an opportunity for exploitation. For the past year, this committee has worked with industry stakeholders and digital asset users to fully understand the problems that they face with our current tax regime and the best ways to address these concerns. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor on Chairman Smith's Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act, which makes important updates to the tax code's treatment of digital assets to ensure greater clarity of digital asset users, and it also creates parity with other financial assets. This bill has important components from my bill, the Less Tax Paperwork for Digital Asset Owners Act, such as a simplified accounting method for one or more widely traded digital assets.
Combined with new rules for network fees and US dollar stablecoins, this bill ends the requirement for filing a form 1099-DA for every single digital asset transaction, no matter how small or inconsequential. Substantially decreasing the administrative burden on taxpayers and the IRS is certainly a goal of this bill.
This net increase in revenue is from tax increases that result in clarifications around how digital assets are taxed. The industry remains supportive of this bill despite it being a net tax increase because they understand that their technology can compete fairly if they're just simply given a level playing field. If my colleagues will look at the JCT table, they will see that 11 lines increase tax revenue, only five lose revenue, and nine have a negligible effect. The bulk of this bill has produced administrative savings and a fair application of rules certainly cuts in both directions. They have asked for certainty and administrability, not handouts, and that's exactly what this bill does.
Clear rules of the road allow digital asset industry will allow the digital asset industry to grow. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for your hard work and leadership on this bill. I look forward to voting for it and I certainly encourage my colleagues to do the same. With that I yield back.
Max Miller
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to strike the last word. Since the beginning of this Congress I have worked alongside my colleague Mr. Horsford to help build a comprehensive tax framework for digital assets. As I grappled with digital assets and learned about gaps in our tax code, a few things became abundantly clear. Digital asset tax policy should be coherent, administrable, and technologically neutral. This means we need policy that brings clarity and certainty in otherwise unpredictable financial service.
This legislation also treats digital assets with parity by ensuring that they are taxed and treated the same as other financial products. We say we want to make the United States of America the crypto capital of the world and this bill sure that makes sure that that goal isn't just a bunch of hot air. I appreciate the committee's continued focus on digital asset taxation and its need to provide taxpayers with greater certainty as well as including my and Mr. Horsford's gambling loss deduction bill, the Full House Act, in this package. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and I'm looking forward to a productive markup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Bean.
Aaron Bean
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, good morning to you, good morning Ways and Means, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me speak on your very meaningful and insightful bill, the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act. It also acknowledges your bill, Mr. Chairman, acknowledges our current tax system was not built for the digital asset economy. We didn't even know about crypto when we wrote the tax laws many, many years ago. The result today has been confusion, inconsistency, and non-compliance.
There's a growing backlog of of cases at the IRS dealing with crypto. Millions of Americans entered the space with unclear rules, limited guidance, and a lack of understanding of how the how the system works for crypto. Many made honest mistakes, others simply did not know where to begin. Today those taxpayers face a system where coming forward can feel more dangerous than staying silent. The threat of severe penalties, open-ended audits, and years of uncertainty has pushed people into the shadows even when they want to do the right thing.
That's not how a credible tax system works. So here's the question of the day, Ways and Means, what if? What if we could create a safe harbor where people that were behind on their taxes or were caught up in the confusion could come forward and call timeout on the penalties on their crypto backlog tax cases?
Well, that's exactly why I introduced the Digital Assets Voluntary Disclosure Program. It does not forgive taxes. It does not reward tax evasion. It just creates a structured, time-limited pathway where taxpayers can come forward, correct past errors, pay what they owe, and re-enter the system with certainty. It strengthens enforcement, improves compliance, and ensures digital assets do not become a refuge for tax avoidance.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what you did. You included this bill in your bill. How about that? And that just shows you that we can all come together and do great things for our economy, for this growing sector of raising money for our country. And so with that, I urge our, I want to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, and urge everybody to vote yes for the bill.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Jason Smith
Are there additional members that wish to strike the last word? See none, we will move to amendments. Does any member have an amendment?
I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doggett.
Jason Smith
A point of order has been reserved. The clerk will distribute the amendment, and I ask the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes.
Lloyd Doggett
Surely. Proceed, Mr. Doggett. Five years ago, President Trump declared, quote, Bitcoin, it just seems like a scam. Yet after finding so many ways to enrich himself through crypto, he recently posted, quote, Trump will never let crypto down. Through crypto, Trump has scammed thousands and laundered payments from wealthy foreigners and foreign states in exchange for presidential favors.
My amendment puts an end to such crypto-enabled scams. It simply says that any of our top administration officials, the president, vice president, cabinet, senior officials, plus every member of Congress, along with their immediate families, cannot own or profit from cryptocurrency while in office. It would require the president to sell the crypto he owns now and to enjoy a rare experience, actually paying tax on his income, so that he can no longer take millions of dollars in income from foreigners using World Liberty Financial or Trump coins. Earlier this year, Reuters published the most thorough accounting of the Trump family's crypto business. Across four ventures, the family has pocketed at least 2.3 billion dollars since the president returned to office.
On the other side of that ledger, more than a million investors lost about the same amount, 2.3 billion dollars. The president profited dollar for dollar about as much as his own supporters lost. In every one of these ventures ran the same play. The family risked next to nothing upfront. The president and sons hyped a crypto token.
The money poured in, and ordinary buyers were left holding the bag when the price collapsed. His meme coin is down 97 percent from its peak. One woman put in 2,000 dollars of her savings. Today it's worth 120 dollars. Steven Levitsky, the Harvard scholar who wrote How Democracies Die, said he had never seen such open corruption anywhere in the modern world.
But the losses to investors are only half the danger. The other half is what these coins do to our government. Because no one, not this committee, not the public, knows who's actually buying these cryptocurrencies.
Take the Trump meme coin, for example. When its price sagged, the president offered a prize. The top holders of the coin will get a private dinner with the President of the United States, and the biggest buyers would even get a White House tour, what's left of it. The seats averaged hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. And who turned up?
More than half of these top buyers were likely foreign. So much concern expressed today in this committee about China and all the dangers, but not a bit of concern about the fact that one of those people was on a Communist Party advisory body for China. A foreign logistics company announced out loud that it was buying millions of Trump coin for the purpose of swaying American trade policy. No concern from this committee. So think about what this means.
Any foreign government, anyone seeking a pardon, anyone chasing a federal contract can now wire money straight into the president's pocket, anonymously, to secure whatever they're seeking. This isn't a business, it's a tip jar. And it gets even more dangerous. Last year a state-backed investment run by a top Emirati official who's called the Spy Sheikh routed a two billion dollar deal through the Trump family stablecoin, generating millions in fees per year for the Trump family. It just coincidentally at the very moment the United Arab Emirates was negotiating for access to hundreds of thousands of the most advanced AI chips.
Many of those chips were sent to a company with deep Chinese ties. No concern from this committee, of course, while the National Security Council officials who had resisted this action by Trump, they were purged from their jobs at the White House. One headline summed up the UAE got the chips and the Trump family got the riches. Trump was paid for trading away control of our most sensitive technology. Colleagues, this committee is here today to write the rules of the road for crypto.
We should not be writing those rules while the single largest beneficiary of this industry sits right there on Pennsylvania Avenue in the Oval Office profiting in secret from foreigners. My amendment is direct. If you hold the public trust as president, Congress members, and immediate families, you cannot own and profit from crypto. Public officials should not be in the business of a profit center. I urge its adoption.
Vern Buchanan
Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order, the amendment is not germane to the underlying measure under clause seven of House Rule 16. Amendments are not germane if they are on a subject different than what's being considered. The matter, the certain, the subject matter of the underlying measure is tax treatment of certain income, and the subject and the subject matter of the amendment is criminal penalties underlying the total effort on the amendment and is not germane as is not in order.
Jason Smith
Does the sponsor of the amendment wish to be heard on the point of order?
Lloyd Doggett
Very briefly. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to see this effort to restrict the committee's jurisdiction. You have described this as a broad bill. It is a broad bill that I don't believe can ignore the elephant in the room, the big elephant in the room, and that is those who are profiting the most from crypto by using their public office.
If this is not relevant to the work of the rules, the guidelines we are setting for the crypto industry, then it is a narrowness that defies the concern that the public has about the corruption that's going on. There's no reason we can't do what you want about taxes and at the same time protect our country and our national security from the very real threat of our public rights being sold to the highest bidder. I yield back.
Jason Smith
I'm prepared to rule. The amendment is not germane and the point of order is sustained.
The amendment is not in order.
Lloyd Doggett
Mr. Chairman, on that I would respectfully appeal the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Chairman, I move to table.
Jason Smith
The question is on tabling the appeal of the ruling of the chair. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 43
Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes. Mr. LaHood. Mr. LaHood, yes.
Mr. Arrington. Mr. Arrington, yes. Mr. Estes. Mr. Estes, yes. Mr. Smucker.
Mr. Smucker, yes. Mr. Hern. Mr. Hern, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes.
Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy, yes. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Steube.
Mr. Steube, yes. Ms. Tenney. Ms. Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, yes.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, yes. Ms. Van Duyne. Ms. Van Duyne, yes. Mr. Feenstra.
Mr. Feenstra, yes. Ms. Malliotakis. Ms. Malliotakis, yes. Mr. Carey. Mr. Carey, yes.
Mr. Yakym. Mr. Yakym, yes. Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, yes. Mr. Bean.
Mr. Bean, yes. Mr. Moran. Mr. Neal. Mr. Doggett.
Speaker 43
Mr. Doggett, no. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, no. Mr. Larson. Mr. Larson, no.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, no. Ms. Sánchez. Ms. Sánchez, no. Ms. Sewell.
Ms. Sewell, no. Ms. DelBene. Ms. DelBene, no. Ms. Chu. Ms. Chu, no.
Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore, no. Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle, no. Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Evans.
Speaker 48
Mr. Evans, no. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider, no. Mr. Panetta. Mr. Panetta, no.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford. Mr. Horsford, no. Ms. Plaskett.
Chairman Smith, yes.
Speaker 51
There being 25 yeses and 16 nos, the bill is tabled. Are there additional amendments?
Jason Smith
Mr. Chairman, I have another one.
That surprises me. Mr. Doggett. A point of order has been reserved. Will the gentleman suspend while the clerk distributes the amendment?
Lloyd Doggett
Surely. Our law requires that one compensated for, quote, regularly providing... Proceed, Mr. Doggett. Excuse me. Our law requires that one compensated for, quote, regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets is responsible, like any other broker of stocks or other financial instruments, for giving its customers and the IRS the basic information needed to pay the correct tax, usually a 1099.
At President Trump's insistence, a giant loophole lets non-custodial platforms, the ones that have branded themselves as decentralized finance, but that for customers are little different than Coinbase or Binance, they get to escape that duty entirely. And that loophole is an engine for tax evasion. My amendment takes the DeFi broker reporting rule that the Treasury finalized back in December of 2024, which unfortunately this Congress repealed under the Review Act in April, and puts it directly into the tax code. When crypto is not being used for financial speculation, it is being used to facilitate illicit transactions. And there's nothing in this bill before us designed to stop or even mitigate the billions of dollars that are flowing in lawlessness that crypto makes possible.
My amendment will not end all of this abuse, but it can stop tax evasion and discourage other illicit activity. By simply requiring that these platforms file a 1099 report the way every other broker does, this prevents crypto from being used for tax evasion. The Joint Committee on Taxation reported to us earlier this year that failing to report cost us $4 billion. Not from cutting anyone's taxes, this provision raises no one's taxes, it loses $4 billion because without reporting, people cheat. This is $4 billion handed to tax evaders.
And tax evasion is only beginning, the beginning of what hides in this market. Consider crypto sanctions evasion. The founder of Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange, pleaded guilty to breaking our anti-money laundering laws and sanction laws, including processing transactions for users in Iran. Binance paid $4 billion in penalties. And what happened next?
Well, of course, President Trump pardoned him. Consider crypto terrorism financing. Earlier this year, more than 300 families of the victims of October 7th attack, including the families of murdered American hostages, sued Binance in federal court. They alleged the company knowingly moved more than $1 billion for Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Iran's Revolutionary Guard, including over 50 million after the October 7th massacre. Consider the crypto scams and the blackmail.
The FBI's latest crime report found Americans lost $21 billion to online crime last year, and more than half of that, over $11 billion, involved cryptocurrency. The hardest hit, of course, were our seniors. These are the extortion emails and the ransomware demands that run on crypto precisely because it's anonymous and irreversible. Step back and look at the whole picture. The firm Chainalysis traced 154 billion in dirty money through crypto last year, nearly triple the prior year.
As one watchdog put it, money laundering is not a defect in crypto, it's the major feature. So who exactly is protected by this tax reporting loophole? Look no further than the venture Trump and his sons launched called World Liberty Financial, which billed itself as the future of decentralized finance, the very part of this market which my amendment would simply require to report its taxes. And consider the man behind it, from the budgets that he used to gut high-end IRS enforcement to the sweetheart IRS audit immunity deal he negotiated with himself to his own boast that he's smart because he doesn't pay taxes. Trump is the patron saint of wealthy tax cheats, the kind who would have honest, hardworking Americans shoulder an ever-greater burden of our national defense, our transportation infrastructure, and other vital services.
My amendment is a very modest step to restore one rule that brings DeFi platforms into the daylight and prevents them from being a haven for tax cheats. A vote for this amendment is a vote for transparency over the tax cheats, the sanctions evaders, and those who finance terrorism, all of whom have thrived in the dark. I urge its adoption and yield back.
Mike Carey
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I want to remind the members of this committee that we had this legislation some time ago as it was brought up, and I would like the members of this committee just to remember that when it made it to the floor in both the House and the Senate, many members on this committee overwhelmingly on the floor voted in favor of its passage. And I can go into the details of it, but essentially we came together to repeal the overly broad and ambiguous rule and replace it with a common-sense solution, which is what this did. And to reflect, the previous administration's rule was finalized after the election without the proper vetting and feedback from Congress and industry stakeholders, which we did have. So I urge my colleagues to remember their vote on the floor, again, overwhelmingly bipartisan. So I urge a no vote.
I yield.
Lloyd Doggett
Mr. Larson is yielding his time to Mr. Doggett.
I'm only asking today for a four billion dollar reconsideration. Because four billion dollars is what it costs to authorize tax cheats to not have 1099s like every American who's a stockholder gets on their dividends and like every holder of a bond or instrument that is earning interest at a bank or a institution that pays interest. They get a 1099. This isn't an unreasonable burden. It is a direct action to have parity, which the authors of this bill say they want, parity with all financial instruments.
That if you earn from crypto, you can't evade your taxes by going through a what is called decentralized finance. I urge adoption of the amendment to get that four billion dollars and to achieve some parity and equity for all and respond to tax evaders and all that use the crypto system for illegal purposes. I yield back.
Speaker 59
Are there further discussion on the amendment? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Suozzi.
Thomas Suozzi
I just want to say I have to actually leave and I'm not going to be here for this vote, but I just wanted to comment on Mr. Doggett for a second. I think that Mr. I disagree with Mr. Doggett on a whole bunch of different things in our philosophies, but I just want to say thank him for his service to his country because he really brings up so many important issues on a regular basis to get people thinking about things that they don't normally think about. And he's really been an important voice in this committee for a long time. And he's not running for reelection because he was redistricted out of his seat during that Texas redistricting, but I just wanted to publicly thank him for his service and for the great things that he brings to everyone's attention on a regular basis. So thank you, Mr. Doggett.
Jason Smith
Further discussion on the amendment? The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Doggett. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Speaker 43
Mr. Doggett, yes. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson. Mr. Larson, yes.
Speaker 43
Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, yes. Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Sanchez, yes. Ms. Sewell.
Ms. Sewell, yes. Ms. DelBene. Ms. DelBene, yes. Ms. Chu. Ms. Chu, yes.
Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore, yes. Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle, yes. Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans, yes. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider, no. Mr. Panetta.
Mr. Panetta, no. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford. Mr. Horsford, no. Ms. Plaskett.
Ms. Plaskett, no. Mr. Suozzi. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska, no. Mr. Arrington.
Mr. Arrington, no. Mr. Hern. Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy, no. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Ms. Tenney. Ms. Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Neal.
Mr. Neal, yes. Mr. Beyer. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Suozzi. Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith, no.
The clerk will report the vote.
Jason Smith
There being 12 yeses and 28 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments?
One final one. Mr. Doggett.
Jason Smith
A point of order has been reserved. Would the gentleman suspend while the amendment is distributed?
Lloyd Doggett
Surely. Proceed, Mr. Doggett. Our nation's most prominent artificial intelligence figures, leaders like OpenAI's Altman, Anthropic's Amodei, and even Elon Musk, have conceded after a whistleblower recently came forward and rang the alarm bell that AI poses a growing danger, requiring slower development and sufficient guardrails before something goes wrong. Our self-proclaimed stable genius Donald Trump immediately dismissed these fears, including a greater than 10 percent chance that AI systems could destroy all human life within the next four years.
This very week, amazingly, Trump tweeted, quote, "The only control or guardrails that AI needs is a strong and smart president." I doubt that many Americans are convinced that Trump's intelligence is a sufficient safeguard to prevent extinction of the human race. But long before the first AI data center broke ground, crypto mining was already buying up electricity for data centers. And not by accident, we've been governing on faith instead of on facts regarding what crypto actually costs people who live nearby. Two years ago, the Energy Information Administration set out with a very basic inquiry.
It just asked crypto miners how much electricity they were using. The industry sued. The agency withdrew the survey and agreed to destroy the data it had collected. So this isn't a case of incomplete information, it is a case of information deliberately denied and obstructed. My amendment doesn't tax, it doesn't regulate.
It says that Treasury, in consultation with the Department of Energy, should study crypto mining's impact on our environment and energy markets. It simply asks what crypto costs: the power, the water, the emissions, the effect on the bills of the overwhelming number of families who've never bought a Bitcoin. If this industry is a good neighbor, it has nothing to fear from a study. With today's rush to give crypto friends tax breaks without taking the time to ask how crypto mining data centers impact their neighbors and the air they breathe, this modest amendment would bring us necessary information on the resulting impact. In Texas, Governor Abbott urged crypto to come take advantage of cheap power, proudly proclaiming Texas will be the crypto leader without consulting the impact on electric rates.
In 2021, during Winter Storm Uri, or Storm Abbott as some call it, a crypto mining data center near Austin consumed the amount of electricity needed to power 6,500 homes. People were freezing in their homes as crypto's data centers kept on churning. The state of Texas eventually agreed to pay crypto facilities an average of $175,000 an hour just to go offline so others could stay warm, shifting the cost of energy resilience to everyday Texans. In 2023, to reduce energy consumption during a heatwave, which we have more and more of in Texas and elsewhere, another Bitcoin mining company was paid $32 million to go offline. If crypto mining facilities can essentially hold our communities hostage like this, we should at least know the extent of their energy use and environmental damage before we have to pay for it.
Thanks to industry intransigence, we're working with a black box, preventing us from fully understanding crypto's impact. Home electricity rates are rising faster than the rate of inflation. As the sweltering summer heat now extends right on into September across much of the country, millions of Americans will struggle to pay their bills and cool their homes. Instead of focusing on these issues, Republicans are devoted to incentivizing crypto mining, data center development, without any care regarding how this impacts electric bills, drinking water, and air quality. This amendment will simply inform us of the true size of crypto's footprint.
Trump and his enablers act like we don't know what we don't know can't hurt us, but it can and it can cost us. Last month, the hottest record recorded in over 130 years of tracking the data. Blocking data, blocking scientific study only leaves us less and less prepared to address the ongoing emergency. Americans across the country are struggling to pay their bills. Let's get the facts on what unfettered data center development will have on American families, and I yield back.
Moving adoption of the amendment.
Jason Smith
Any discussion on the amendment? Seen none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Doggett. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. Miller, no. Mr. Bean.
Mr. Doggett, yes. Mr. Thompson.
Ms. Sewell, yes. Ms. DelBene.
Ms. DelBene, yes. Ms. Chu.
Ms. Chu, yes. Ms. Moore.
Chairman Smith, no.
How is Mr. Hern recorded?
Mr. Hern is not recorded.
Clerk will report the vote.
Jason Smith
There being 16 yeses and 25 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments? See none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
Jason Smith
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mr. Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.
Vern Buchanan
Mr. Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H.R. 10357 as amended to the House of Representatives.
Jason Smith
The question is on the motion to favorably report H.R. 10357 as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. Smucker, yes. Mr. Hern.
Ms. Sewell, yes. Ms. DelBene.
Mr. Schneider, yes. Mr. Panetta.
Speaker 60
Mr. Fitzpatrick, yes. Ms. Tenney. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Suozzi. Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith, yes.
How is Ms. Tenney recorded?
Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 38 and the nays are 5.
Jason Smith
There being 38 ayes and 5 nays, the motion is agreed to and H.R. 10357 as amended is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H.R. 10357 and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental, additional, dissenting, or minority views. Our next order of business is H.R. 10334, the EFIN Verification Act, introduced by Representative Estes, a bill that strengthens taxpayer protections against identity theft and fraud. Representative Estes brings a problem solver's background to this issue from his years as an engineer and as Kansas's state treasurer. As chairman of our Social Security Subcommittee, he has been a steady voice for policies that go after fraudsters and combat identity theft.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Estes, for an opening statement.
Ron Estes
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Panetta for partnering with me on this important bipartisan legislation. Mr. Chairman, fraud is an issue that directly affects all Americans. The last thing anybody wants to find out is somebody's stolen their identity and has filed a return under their name. But every year that happens.
While I want to commend the IRS for having high standards in place, some critical gaps still remain. That's why Mr. Panetta and I have introduced the EFIN Verification Act of 2024, which requires the IRS to create a real-time verification system for EFINs before a tax return is submitted. This is needed legislation because every year millions of taxpayers rely on a tax professional to file their return. Behind each of these returns is an electronic filing identification number, or EFIN. These are what the IRS relies on to keep a clear record of who submitted a tax return on a taxpayer's behalf.
The problem is that we're now seeing compromised EFINs being used to submit hundreds of fraudulent returns and steal millions of dollars, victimizing taxpayers in the process. Kansans who do everything right can end up waiting months for their refund while they clean up a mess they didn't make. Worse, the IRS doesn't have the tools to catch this kind of fraud before it happens. Right now, the IRS doesn't provide real-time verification of EFINs when a return is filed. That means there's a lag between when the number is compromised and when it's actually discovered and fixed.
The IRS has taken steps to cut down on that delay, but more needs to be done. We should stop fraud before it happens. With our bill, the tax software will identify the EFIN number first.
Speaker 21
If that number has been suspended, revoked, or compromised, the return won't go through. It's a common sense change that ensures only authorized and active EFINs are eligible to file returns. The goal is to prevent fraud before it occurs so the IRS isn't left running down rabbit holes trying to find stolen refunds. The legislation builds off existing efforts and leverages new technology in partnership with tax professionals, software providers, state tax agencies, and financial institutions. It uses the same safeguard the tax code already has in place to protect taxpayer information.
It also gives the IRS and industry two years to get the system up and running the right way. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter of support for H.R. 10334 from the American Coalition of Taxpayer Rights, which highlights the importance of this legislation in securing our tax system.
Without objection, so ordered.
Speaker 21
Again, I want to thank my bipartisan partner, Mr. Panetta, as well as committee and IRS staff who provided technical assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back.
Jimmy Panetta
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, of course, want to first acknowledge the very difficult work of Representative Estes to introduce this important bipartisan legislation that would prevent fraud and protect the American taxpayers. The EFIN Verification Act of 2026 addresses a concerning vulnerability in our tax system. Currently, the IRS has no verification system for electronic filing identification numbers, otherwise known as EFINs. That's the six-digit set of numbers issued by the IRS to tax professionals and firms that are authorized to file tax returns.
Now, those numbers are important because they identify the firm or entity submitting a tax return. But the issue we're trying to solve with this legislation is that when an EFIN is stolen or compromised, criminals can use it to steal client data and to make fraudulent returns appear as though they were filed by a legitimate tax professional. That is particularly concerning because tax preparers can have access to some of taxpayers' most sensitive information, including social security numbers, wage and income records, bank account information, and prior tax year returns. To prevent this, our bill would establish a simple safeguard: that the IRS must validate the EFIN as active and authorized before tax preparation software allows a return or other document to be electronically filed using an EFIN. That would help prevent fraudulent filings before they enter the IRS system, rather than forcing taxpayers and the IRS to clean up the damage afterward.
Now, this requirement does not affect taxpayers who electronically file their own tax returns, and it only applies to filings made through tax professionals and firms. This is a targeted, bipartisan step that would strengthen the security of our tax system and help protect taxpayers from identity theft and fraud. Again, I want to thank Mr. Estes for his diligent work on this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee and in Congress to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Jason Smith
The gentleman yields back. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H.R. 10334, the EFIN Verification Act of 2026. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with the green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for the purpose of amendment.
We'll now turn to Tom Barthold, Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.
Tom Barthold
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee members have before them JCX-49, which describes the underlying legislation, EFIN Verification Act of 2026, and JCX-51 on the green sheet, which describes the chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute. The EFIN, the electronic filing identification number, again, is a number that's used by preparers and software providers authorized to electronically file returns and other documentations on behalf of the taxpayer. This is an off-code directive to the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a validation program for EFINs and to require the IRS to develop software requiring EFIN validation before accepting a return or other documents so submitted. The amendment in the nature of a substitute narrows the defined validators to software providers, state tax agencies, and financial institutions.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute also strikes an amendment to the code that was in the underlying legislation, which would have amended code section 6103 relating to privacy of return information. This legislation is effective for taxable years beginning two years after the date of enactment, so if enacted in this session, that would generally apply to taxable years beginning in 2029. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this would have a negligible effect on federal receipts over the budget period of fiscal years 2027 through fiscal year 2036. That concludes my brief description. Be happy to answer any questions that the members might have.
Jason Smith
Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Any members with a question? Seeing none, does anyone, do any members wish to strike the last word? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
If there are no further amendments, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed, nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mr. Buchanan for the purpose of a motion.
Vern Buchanan
Mr. Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H.R. 10334 as amended to the House of Representatives.
Jason Smith
The question is on the motion to favorably report H.R. 10334 as amended to the House of Representatives. Clerk, call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Speaker 43
Mr. Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes.
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estes.
Mr. Doggett, yes. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson.
Speaker 60
Mr. Horsford, yes. Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Suozzi. Mr. LaHood. Mr. Arrington.
How is Mr. LaHood recorded?
Mr. LaHood is not recorded.
Clerk report.
Jason Smith
The yeses being 40, the nos being zero, the motion is agreed to and H.R. 10334 as amended is favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H.R. 10334 and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental, additional, dissenting, or minority views. H.R. 6130, the Alzheimer's Screening and Prevention ASAP Act of 2025. Our next order of business is H.R. 6130, introduced by Representative Buchanan. This bill ensures Medicare covers innovative blood-based tests that can detect Alzheimer's disease in its earliest stages.
As both chair of the Health Subcommittee and vice chairman of the committee, Representative Buchanan has been a champion for policies that improve health outcomes for seniors and help families get the care they need. And this issue is particularly personal for him. His experience caring for a parent with Alzheimer's has given him a firsthand understanding of how important early detection can be for families facing this disease. With nearly 200,000 seniors in his district, this is a cause that is personal for him and for the folks he represents. The legislation before us also includes an important policy from two other great members of our committee, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. LaHood, that will improve doctors' ability to detect Alzheimer's and related dementias sooner.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Buchanan, for an opening statement.
Vern Buchanan
I would like to thank Chairman Smith for moving forward on my legislation that allows Medicare to cover blood-based biomarker screening tests for early detection of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Today, more than 7 million Americans live with Alzheimer's. And as you mentioned, my father, we at 58 found out he had Alzheimer's and we took him in the family, brought him in, and it was a long period of 10 years, but we worked through that and we felt the love and it's just really important what we're doing here and the idea of prevention is key. In Florida alone, Alzheimer's cost Medicaid more than $3.9 billion a year. Blood-based biomarkers tests are transforming what is possible with Alzheimer's.
Our goal is simple: catch the disease early, prevention, treat it sooner, and get families more time with their loved ones, and that's critical. To do that, Medicare must keep pace with what's going on with technology today. That technology is available out there. In fact, the testing they're saying is 90% or close to 90%, it's a big deal. That is why the legislation matters.
For too long, Alzheimer's has taken too much from our families. Now we have an opportunity to change that based on the new technologies. With over 200 bipartisan cosponsors, it's bipartisan, and support from 525 organizations, my legislation shows strong bipartisan backing and significant momentum towards addressing a shared national priority. I want to thank also Mr. Tonko for his bipartisan leadership on these vital issues, and I look forward to advancing Alzheimer's Screening and Prevention Act through the committee and ultimately to the President of the United States. I yield back.
Speaker 102
Thank you. I now recognize acting ranking member Ms. Moore for an opening statement.
Ms. Sanchez.
Linda Sánchez
Thank you. And I, I'm proud to speak on this legislation and thank you for the time. I want to begin by thanking Congressman Buchanan for his work on this really important issue. I know that we share family history of this devastating disease, as may other colleagues on the dais as well, since we are seeing the numbers of folks living with Alzheimer's rising. I also want to thank Chairman Smith for offering the amendment that includes mine and Mr. LaHood's legislation, the CHANGE Act.
By 2050, the number of Alzheimer's diagnoses is projected to rise to nearly 13 million. Two-thirds of Americans currently living with Alzheimer's disease are women. And according to the CDC, Latinos and Black Americans will see the largest increase in Alzheimer's disease by 2060. And it's very clear that our healthcare system is not equipped to care for the sandwich generation. Many folks here know that I lost both of my parents to Alzheimer's.
I cared for both of them. My father passed several years ago and my mother most recently passed from this disease. And you know, when my father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, we were lucky because we did some research and we were able to get him enrolled in a clinical trial at the University of California, Irvine. But not every family knows how to access their resources or has the, the time to investigate what resources are available. So the earlier that we can detect any sort of dementia or, or decline in, in cognitive reasoning, the earlier that families and their providers can determine an appropriate care plan and start to put that into place.
That is why both the Alzheimer's Screening and Prevention Act and the CHANGE Act are win for seniors, caregivers, and working families. Today, people with family histories of Alzheimer's, like my family, can breathe a small sigh of relief. For the past 10 years, I've worked with patient advocates like UsAgainstAlzheimer's and, and my Republican colleagues, I've worked with them as well to try to advance legislation improving early detection of cognitive dementia for our seniors. The bill before us represents a seminal step towards what I'm going to call our mammogram moment. The FDA has already cleared several biomarker blood tests to help doctors look for signs of Alzheimer's disease.
And most recently in August, the FDA cleared a biomarker test for adults 55 and older with signs or symptoms of cognitive decline. Now, the legislation before us brings family and high-risk patients closer to these innovative tests through Medicare. And thanks to Mr. LaHood, this bill will also improve routine screenings and early detection amongst Medicare beneficiaries so that they receive a diagnostic screening during their annual Medicare wellness visit. Together, these policies will provide individuals and their families more time to begin treatment, to plan ahead, to enroll in clinical trials, and to seek support where it matters most. One provision that I particularly want to highlight is the AINS, in the AINS, is reinforcing the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's role in determining appropriate care for individuals at risk for Alzheimer's.
I'm deeply concerned about this administration working to effectively dismantle the USPSTF. And this important provision will ensure adequate and necessary coverage of these diagnostic tests for patients and it demonstrates a commitment to policy that is backed in science.
This would not have been possible without their stories, their passion, and most of all their commitment to patients. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back the balance of my time.
Jason Smith
Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H.R. 6130, the Alzheimer's Screening and Prevention ASAP Act of 2025. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment.
We now to, I will now turn to Patrick Dumont, Health Subcommittee Staff Director, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation. Mr. Dumont.
Speaker 108
Thank you, Chairman Smith, Vice Ranking Member Moore. H.R. 6130, the Alzheimer's Screening and Prevention Act, contains three sections. Section one provides for the short title of the bill. Section two amends section 1861 of the Social Security Act to provide transitional Medicare coverage of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias early screening tests for certain high-risk beneficiaries beginning January 1st, 2028. Section three amends section 1861 of the Social Security Act to clarify that cognitive impairment detection tools used during a cognitive impairment test performed as part of the Medicare annual wellness visit must meet requirements set by the National Institute on Aging.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute sets the coverage and payment criteria for the early detection screening tests and adds section three to the bill. This concludes the technical walk-through.
Jason Smith
Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, does anyone wish to strike the last word? Mr. Schneider is recognized.
Bradley Schneider
Thank you. I just want to thank my colleagues for introducing this bill. I lost my father to, well, a number of things including Alzheimer's a little more than three years ago. I know it affects all of our families. It was actually right about this time in 2017 that we had some initial suspicions.
With the ability to do a blood test that would have given us a better confirmation, this is something that I think affects so many families across our country and we all should support. I just want to say thank you.
David Kustoff
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the committee holding a markup on this bill. I represent Tennessee's 8th Congressional District and over the years, like a lot of you, I've gotten to know strong advocates from my district who advocate on behalf of Alzheimer's patients. The constituents that I meet with, and again I know this is true for all of us, they are passionate, they are well-informed, and they do a good job keeping me up to date on all the new tests and treatments. To date, obviously we know that the FDA has recently cleared new blood tests which can detect signs of Alzheimer's sooner and faster than scans and painful spinal taps. For the older methods of testing, they're also less accessible to rural patients like many in West Tennessee.
They often in those areas don't have neurologists or memory care specialists who live in that area. So catching the disease in its earlier stages allows intervention when treatment could be the most effective. I can think of one advocate that has talked to me about these tests along with other treatments, and she told me that for her aunt, who sadly passed away after a fight with Alzheimer's, that if this had been available back in those years, maybe that could have saved her. We also know that Medicare beneficiaries still face a significant barrier to access the new screening test. Medicare can only cover these tests for patients who already show these symptoms.
So it's imperative that Congress act to allow expanded coverage for Alzheimer's tests. I think, and I think we all believe, that we owe that to America's seniors. I'm proud to cosponsor Mr. Buchanan's bill, the Alzheimer's Screening and Prevention Act. The legislation does give CMS the authority to cover Alzheimer's tests based on CMS's existing evidence-based framework. As our nation continues to age, we have people who continue to age, this legislation is only becoming more necessary.
And for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield back.
Vern Buchanan
Yeah, let me be clear where I was coming from with this, because I'm very big on prevention. I lost my mother to cancer. You can get, you've got to figure out in my mind how to get in front of it, not react to it. When you react to something in healthcare, whether it's heart disease, many of us know this, cancer, those types of things, like they say cancer, if you get it early, 90% you can get the cure if it's in its early stages. If you go to stage four like my mother was, it's too late.
So what we're trying to do here is give this challenge, horrible challenge, is try to find a way to get them in sooner and more active to it. With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Moore is recognized.
Gwen Moore
I move to strike the last word. Mr. Buchanan, I'm just wondering if you would engage in a colloquy with me.
Sure.
Gwen Moore
There is one portion of the bill that says that payment will not be made unless there's an elevated risk for Alzheimer's disease. And you just said that if you had known sooner or if you had a way of knowing. So what is the threshold, I think, for Medicare to be able to make a payment? What is an elevated risk? I guess I should ask Mr. Dumas instead, but you're the author, so I'll just ask you.
What's an elevated risk? When you start feeling suspicious, like Mr. Schneider suggested, what is the threshold for getting a payment?
Speaker 105
I think that's something that'll evolve with medical science. That's what they're saying. So it might be something we can take an additional look at, but we're very bullish about where we're at. It's a lot of progress, so we want to finish strong. So I appreciate it.
Gwen Moore
Yeah, I think it's a fantastic bill. I just don't want anybody to miss the chance to have it paid for by Medicare because they haven't met a certain, I mean, threshold. But yeah, we'll continue to work on it. It's a great bill. I yield back.
Rudy Yakym
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Far too many Hoosiers know the heartbreaking reality of having a loved one with Alzheimer's. They live with the pain of gradually watching their loved ones slip away, with limited options to slow progression. Far too often, once a patient is diagnosed with Alzheimer's, it's already too advanced for existing treatments to slow the progression.
Incredible innovation by American biotech companies has led to the development of new medical tests and treatment options, giving much-needed hope to both individuals with Alzheimer's and their loved ones. I'm proud to have some of this groundbreaking innovation happening in the Hoosier State. The development of new diagnostic technology allows for earlier detection of Alzheimer's, and seniors on Medicare should have access to it. I'm proud to co-sponsor the Alzheimer's Screening and Prevention, or ASAP, Act, led by Mr. Buchanan, which provides traditional Medicare coverage for early Alzheimer's screening blood tests. These tests give individuals earlier detection, allowing for greater opportunity for early intervention that delay disease progression.
Additionally, it allows patients and their families more time to create a long-term plan. Outside of the very real human toll Alzheimer's takes on the individual and their loved ones, it's also a very costly disease to care for. Estimates show that Alzheimer's disease is projected to cost 263 billion dollars this year, with most of the costs attributed to late-stage institutionalized care. Early detection is estimated to save over 14,000 dollars per person annually. Access to these innovative tests is critical to delaying disease progression and giving people more quality time with their loved ones.
I look forward to voting in favor of this bill. I urge my colleagues to certainly do the same. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Darin LaHood
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I applaud the committee for bringing this critical piece of legislation before us today, which will provide crucial momentum to the early detection of Alzheimer's disease. And I'm proud to be the co-lead of H.R. 3501, the CHANGE Act, alongside with Representative Sanchez, a long-time advocate of this legislation. I want to thank my colleague Representative Buchanan for spearheading the ASAP Act, and I'm glad to see the legislation includes our CHANGE Act as a provision. Unfortunately, as we all know, too many of us have a loved one suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Today, Alzheimer's and other dementias are under-detected in the primary care setting about 50 percent of the time.
Yet we now know that every 65 seconds someone develops Alzheimer's, which is why we must equip our providers with robust resources to detect this disease faster. The CHANGE Act uses existing tools within Medicare to require cognitive impairment screenings at a patient's annual wellness visit. By conducting this screening every year, physicians can track a patient's cognitive abilities over time and promptly determine when intervention is necessary if there are signs of cognitive decline. We know that early detection can help patients and their families prepare for the challenges ahead, delay the onset of more severe symptoms, and reduce the significant financial burden this disease places on families and our healthcare system. The innovation we are seeing in the dementia space today is inspiring.
But innovation is only meaningful if patients can benefit from it. We must give our providers the tools they need to detect this disease earlier and connect patients with treatment and support sooner. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation before us today.
I thank you and I yield back.
Jason Smith
Mr. LaHood yields back. Does anyone else wish to strike the last word? Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 103
Point of order has been reserved. Clerk will distribute the amendment and I ask Mr. Beyer to suspend while the clerk distributes. Mr. Beyer is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Donald Beyer
In many cases, diagnostic delays or errors cause serious and preventable health issues. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I share my colleagues' enthusiasm for expanding access to reliable, effective diagnostic tests. They drive up health costs and contribute to thousands of preventable deaths by delaying access to life-saving treatments. I lead a bill to reduce those delays and develop the next generation of diagnostic tests, and this has the potential to change the lives of millions of Americans.
I also share my colleagues' hope that an effective Alzheimer's blood test will be part of that next generation and that it will be accompanied by new treatments on the path to a cure. As those tests and treatments develop further and become more readily accessible to patients, I'm hopeful we can close some of the remaining gaps to give patients further peace of mind. As of now, the most promising blood-based Alzheimer's tests are biomarker tests that test specific proteins, often at very early pre-clinical stages. And while early detection is promising, biomarker tests do not fit neatly into existing laws that protect sensitive patient data from misuse. This is the heart of the amendment, because unfortunately HIPAA and other privacy laws don't protect patient data gathered at these early pre-clinical stages.
An early diagnosis could give peace of mind to a patient, but could also be used by a life insurance company to set its prices or deny coverage, or used in a discriminatory manner by potential employers. It can actually be weaponized against the patient, and our laws give little or no recourse in those cases. So my amendment just takes an important step towards protecting those patients. It's not hostile to the bill at all, we very much support the bill. But this amendment would prohibit any payment under the bill for tests until developers, providers, and processors develop robust procedures to protect collected blood test data.
This doesn't create any new requirements, it only ensures that this novel health data is treated the same way, the exact same way as any other health data under HIPAA. We've got a responsibility, we're about to spend two and a half billion dollars' worth of money on screening tests for patients. We have a responsibility to make sure that that data collected will not be misused. And I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
May I ask Mr. Beyer a question?
Yes, sir.
Donald Beyer
Can you define pre-clinical? Reason I say this is because any information, if I go get a blood test done, it goes into my health information record and it is by definition protected under HIPAA. So I'm not sure what pre-clinical means.
Speaker 101
And Doctor, you're probably way better at this than I am. The way it was explained to me by my friends in the Alzheimer's movement was in fact the phrase they used was pre-symptomatic. That if it was symptomatic it was protected by HIPAA, but if it was not symptomatic that it was not.
Gregory Murphy
That's not correct. Because if you're not, you go in for a screening colonoscopy, you're not symptomatic and you find a tumor, you weren't symptomatic, it's still protected by HIPAA. So I'm not sure what they're talking about.
Speaker 100
That is by definition protected by HIPAA. Well, Doctor, let me suggest, and Congressman, let me withdraw the amendment and work closely with you and perhaps connect you with the folks who've given me this information.
Gregory Murphy
No, but I think you bring up a very salient point because I'll give you the example of Huntington's chorea, which there is no treatment for now, and now we are finding evolving treatments for Alzheimer's, and we pray that someday it becomes a treatable and livable disease. If it is discovered, then you fear, fortunately I don't think we're at that point, you fear that insurance benefits would be removed or higher premiums, etc., etc. So I think it's altogether a good reason, but I'm just not sure where it fits. That's all, and I appreciate withdrawing the amendment.
Donald Beyer
And we will love to work with you to make sure that if there is an issue, we address it.
Jason Smith
Mr. Beyer yields back. Does Mr. Beyer... did I hear you say you wish to withdraw?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I do withdraw.
Jason Smith
Mr. Beyer withdraws the amendment. Are there other amendments to be considered? Seeing none. If there are no amendments, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, nay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mr. Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.
Vern Buchanan
Mr. Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H.R. 6130 as amended to the House of Representatives.
Jason Smith
The question is on the motion to favorably report H.R. 6130 as amended to the House of Representatives. Clerk, call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Speaker 43
Mr. Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes.
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Arrington, yes. Mr. Estes. Mr. Estes, yes.
Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker, yes. Mr. Hern. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes.
Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy, yes. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff, yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mr. Moore. Mrs. Steel. Ms. Van Duyne. Mr. Feenstra.
Mrs. Fischbach. Mr. Fitzpatrick, yes. Mr. Steube. Ms. Tenney. Ms. Tenney, yes.
Mr. Feenstra, yes. Ms. Malliotakis. Ms. Malliotakis, yes. Mr. Carey. Mr. Yakym.
Mr. Yakym, yes. Mr. Miller. Mr. Bean. Mr. Bean, yes. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran, yes. Mr. Neal. Mr. Neal, yes. Mr. Doggett. Mr. Doggett, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, yes.
Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Sanchez, yes. Ms. Sewell. Ms. DelBene. Ms. DelBene, yes.
Ms. Chu. Ms. Chu, yes. Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore, yes.
Aye. Mr. Davis, yes. Ms. Sanchez. Aye. Ms. Sanchez, yes.
Ms. Sewell. Ms. DelBene. Aye. Ms. DelBene, yes. Ms. Chu.
Aye. Ms. Chu, yes. Ms. Moore. Aye. Ms. Moore, yes.
Mr. Boyle. Yes. Mr. Boyle, yes. Mr. Beyer. Yes.
Mr. Beyer, yes. Mr. Evans. Yes. Mr. Evans, yes. Mr. Schneider.
Yes. Mr. Schneider, yes. Mr. Panetta. Yes. Mr. Panetta, yes.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford. Aye. Mr. Horsford, yes. Ms. Plaskett.
Mr. Suozzi. Mr. LaHood. Yes. Mr. LaHood, yes. Mr. Hern.
Yes. Mr. Hern, yes. Mr. Steube. Mr. Moore. Yes.
Mr. Moore, yes. Ms. Van Duyne. Yes. Ms. Van Duyne, yes. Mr. Carey.
Yes. Mr. Carey, yes. Mr. Miller. Yes. Mr. Miller, yes.
Mr. Larson. Yes. Mr. Larson, yes. Ms. Sewell. Mr. Gomez.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Suozzi. Chairman Smith. Yes. Chairman Smith, yes.
Speaker 114
There being 40 ayes and zero nays, the motion is agreed to and H.R. 6130, as amended, is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H.R. 6130 and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental, additional, dissenting, or minority votes. Our next order of business is H.R. 5439, the Medically Tailored Home-Delivered Meals Program Pilot Act, introduced by Representative McGovern and Malliotakis, a bill that would give Americans access to healthy, real food and evaluate how this approach can be part of the solution to achieving better health outcomes and reduce hospital readmissions. Representative Malliotakis has been a long-time champion of this idea and has helped build bipartisan support for it. As a member of our Tax and Oversight Subcommittees, she's been a steady voice for policies that help seniors stay healthy and out of the hospital.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Malliotakis, for an opening statement.
Nicole Malliotakis
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including the Medically Tailored Home-Delivered Meals Program Pilot Act in today's markup. I'm very proud to co-lead this bipartisan legislation with Congressman McGovern. At its core, this bill recognizes something very simple, but something that's also very important: good nutrition is an essential part of helping seniors treat, manage, and reduce their chronic conditions.
For many seniors living with chronic illness, access to nutritious food tailored to their medical needs plays a critical role in managing their health. Yet many seniors face real challenges shopping for and preparing meals that meet those needs. We do not have to look far to see the potential of this approach. In my very own district, New York's 11th Congressional District, similar programs provided more than 230,000 medically tailored meals to residents in fiscal year 2026 alone. And 57% of those meals supported residents aged 60 and older.
These are our neighbors, many of whom live with serious conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, and other chronic illnesses that limit their daily lives and make them high utilizers of our healthcare services. For older adults and medically vulnerable individuals who may have difficulty shopping or cooking on their own, having meals designed around their specific medical needs can help them stay nourished, better manage their condition, and remain safely in their homes. We've also seen promising results in New York and in programs across the country that have incorporated medically tailored meals into the care of patients with serious chronic health conditions. These meals are designed by registered dietitians to meet each patient's specific medical needs. In New York, the state has reported reductions in emergency department visits and hospitalizations among patients receiving these services.
And these programs are continuing to expand, with a particular focus on hospitals serving rural and underserved communities. In a medical study published by the National Center of Biotechnology Information, research found that medically tailored meals can reduce hospital admissions by 52% and generate 16% in net healthcare savings, demonstrating the potential for this approach to improve patient outcomes while reducing cost. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit a 2025 peer-reviewed journal article on the research on medically tailored meals for the record.
Without objection.
Nicole Malliotakis
This approach also aligns with the Trump administration's growing focus on the role of nutrition in preventing and managing chronic disease. Secretary Kennedy and CMS Administrator Oz have emphasized that healthy, nutritious food can support recovery, improving long-term health and help patients better manage chronic conditions. Their Make Hospital Food Healthier initiative reflects this broader priority of putting nutrition and prevention at the center of healthcare. Dr. Oz actually recently visited my district, one of my local hospitals, Richmond University Medical Center, where they are participating in this initiative and, you know, patients are happy, the administrators are happy, and certainly it is a win-win is the right thing to do. H.R. 5439 would build on that experience and support the administration's goals of reducing chronic diseases by creating a six-year Medicare pilot program.
And the program would select at least 40 hospitals from across the country with priority given to hospitals serving our rural and underserved communities. Eligible Medicare patients would receive two medically tailored meals each day for 12 weeks. These meals would be designed by registered dietitians around each individual's needs, rather than simply providing a one-size-fits-all meal. The program would also provide patients with nutrition counseling and with appropriate medical nutrition therapy. And this is important because we do want to do more than simply deliver a meal to somebody's doorstep.
We want to give the patients the nutrition education and support that they need to better manage their condition over the long term with lasting results. And that is precisely why we want to do this pilot program. We would rigorously evaluate the outcomes, including hospital readmissions, healthcare utilization, Medicare spending, and patients' health outcomes.
And that data will allow us to determine whether this model works and whether it should be expanded. So this is a common sense approach if we can help a senior manage their diabetes their heart disease their kidney disease or other chronic disease they stay and they can stay healthier at home and avoid an unnecessary trip back to the hospital. We can improve that patient's quality of life while potentially saving taxpayers money. And we know there is a real need. The fact that more than 230,000 medically tailored meals were delivered to residents in my district in just one year shows that we should move forward with this legislation.
I thank my colleagues for their support.
Speaker 114
Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from California Mr. Thompson.
Mike Thompson
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to represent an agricultural district. The farmers ranchers growers and farmworkers I represent produce feed food that feeds our country. They understand something that our healthcare system too often overlooks. They understand that healthy food is in fact medicine.
In my district amazing organizations are already delivering healthy meals to those who are sick. Since 2007 Ceres Community Project has prepared and delivered meals to those who are too sick to shop or too sick to cook. More recently UC Davis Health expanded access to healthy food with the Foodways to Health program. This legislation today recognizes the value of what our agricultural communities produce every day. Our farmers do more than grow crops.
They grow fruits vegetables and other foods that nourish our families strengthen our communities and keep people healthy. Of course food is not a substitute for seeing a doctor receiving necessary medical care or taking the medication that you need. But for someone living with diabetes kidney disease heart failure or other serious health conditions the food they eat can be an essential part of their treatment and their recovery. A prescription cannot do its job if a patient goes home to an empty refrigerator. Discharge instructions are not enough if a senior can't afford the food that their doctor has told them to eat.
Yet that is exactly what happens to too many seniors. We spend thousands of dollars treating someone in the hospital. Doctors nurses and other healthcare professionals provide excellent care stabilize that patient and explain what the patient needs to do to recover and to remain healthy. Then we send that patient home without making sure they can obtain the food their doctor recommended. Too often that patient's condition worsens and they end up right back in the hospital.
That's not good healthcare. It's not compassionate and it's not fiscally responsible. This bill establishes a pilot program through which participating hospitals can identify eligible patients who would benefit from medically tailored meals and nutrition counseling. That means helping patients receive food designed around their specific medical needs and providing them with the information necessary to make healthier choices once they get home. This is a practical and targeted approach.
It will help us better understand how nutrition assistance can improve health outcomes support recovery and reduce avoidable hospital readmissions. It can also help patients and families who are already carrying enormous burdens. When a loved one is recovering from a hospitalization families should be able to focus on that recovery not worry about whether they can afford the food that the recovery requires.
It can also help patients and families who are already carrying enormous burdens. When a loved one is recovering from a hospitalization, families should be able to focus on that recovery, not worry about whether they can afford the food that the recovery requires. We talk a great deal in this committee about improving health outcomes and making healthcare more affordable. This bill gives us an opportunity to advance both goals. It also reminds us that supporting American agriculture and improving public health are not competing priorities.
They are, in fact, connected. Our agricultural communities grow the food that sustains our country. Our healthcare policy should recognize the important role that nutritious food can play in preventing illness, managing chronic conditions, and helping patients heal. Healthy food is medicine. It's time our healthcare system started treating it that way.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back.
Speaker 114
Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H.R. 5439, the Medically Tailored Home-Delivered Meals Program Pilot Act. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment.
I will now turn to Patrick Dumas, Health Subcommittee Staff Director, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.
Speaker 108
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 5439, the Medically Tailored Home-Delivered Meals Program Pilot Act, contains two sections. Section one provides for the short title of the bill. Section two amends part E of title 18 of the Social Security Act to establish a six-year pilot program under Medicare to reimburse selected hospitals to provide medically tailored meals and medical nutrition therapy to certain beneficiaries in their homes to improve health outcomes and reduce risk of readmission to the hospital. The section requires the program to be implemented in a budget-neutral manner and further requires reporting on and evaluation of the outcomes of the program.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical and clerical changes to the bill. This concludes the technical walkthrough.
Jason Smith
Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment in the nature nature of a substitute? Ms. Moore.
Gwen Moore
Thank you, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Dumas. I am looking at page two of the bill, para one, selected hospitals, that the Secretary shall no later than June 30th select to participate in the program at least subject to subsection F, 40 eligible hospitals. Do we know what the criteria are for being able to be an eligible hospital? And I heard the I heard the author of the bill talk about rural hospitals, but would that preclude urban settings, this bill?
Speaker 108
Thank you for the question. To be an eligible hospital to be selected for the program, it is any subsection D hospital, which you can picture as a normal hospital without a special designation, or a critical access hospital, which are typically in rural areas. And as part of an application, they need to attest that they have the ability to provide or have an arrangement with providers of services to do the home-delivered meals as well as the medical nutrition therapy, and they need to have at least three stars in overall hospital quality rating.
Okay. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Steven Horsford
Thank you. Just to clarify, so only the hospitals can provide the service?
Speaker 108
The hospitals can provide the service or contract it out through a contracted organization. They just need to, as part of their application, prove that they have the ability to provide the services.
Speaker 121
So in most cases, it's a home care agency doing it on behalf of the hospital. That would be correct. Okay. And so the patient has to be coming out of a hospital in order for them to qualify for this pilot?
Speaker 108
To be a qualified beneficiary receiving the services, it would be for an individual who was admitted to a hospital and then discharged back to their home, and specifically for having a diet-related spell of illness.
Speaker 121
And what about acute rehab facilities that are deemed... So typically there's step-down hospital to acute rehab to home. Is... are acute rehab facilities included?
Speaker 108
The individual to receive the service would need to be at their home, so they wouldn't be residing in one of those acute rehab facilities.
Speaker 121
No, my question... that's not... my question is, so someone has a health issue, they're in the hospital, they're not automatically discharged home, they could be discharged to a rehab facility, skilled nursing, or another step-down before they get home. So I'm just trying to confirm the eligibility starts with them being in the hospital and ultimately needing the service once they get home.
Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 122
So it doesn't disqualify you if you went from a hospital to acute to skilled nursing to home.
Speaker 108
Correct. Just at the time of discharge, the individual must live at home, must be living at home and not in a nursing home or long-term facility, but it wouldn't preclude if they go to another post-acute care setting.
Mr. Murphy.
Gregory Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the bill completely because I agree a thousand percent that food is medicine, and especially either with post-stroke patients or post-surgical patients, a diet is very, very important, especially protein. Just a couple questions. What do you do about dual eligibles with Medicaid and Medicare? Is there any change in that?
Is it just as long as they're dual eligible, they're fine on Medicare?
Speaker 108
The pilot program is under Medicare, so as long as they are an otherwise eligible Medicare beneficiary, the fact they are a dual eligible wouldn't be a preclude.
Gregory Murphy
All right. So somebody who's 55 and on private insurance or some other is not eligible for this, correct?
Not for this pilot program, no.
Gregory Murphy
All right. Question, what about if somebody's on SNAP benefits and they receive supplemental nutrition? How does that mix with this, just so we prevent people from double-dipping, as it were?
Speaker 108
Correct. The language does ensure that the Secretary sets up the program to ensure appropriate safeguards against waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as, as you say, not double-dipping with other food-based federal programs.
Gregory Murphy
All right. So is this going to be a hospital code that they bill Medicare and that the hospital gets paid and then the hospital's then responsible for contracting with the agency and paying them?
How does that work?
Speaker 108
The actual implementation of the program would be up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, but presumably they would establish an appropriate payment mechanism, which might be a specific code or just the participation in the program itself can be a flat-based payment.
Speaker 116
All right. Is there any idea on how much this is costing? I didn't see how much an estimated cost was.
Speaker 108
The legislation is drafted to be budget-neutral, so there would not be an increase in the deficit to run the program.
Okay. What does that mean?
Speaker 117
Any costs attributable to this program would be offset somehow within otherwise the payments to all hospitals participating in Medicare.
Speaker 115
All right. Make sure it's against the hospitals and not against the doctors.
It is all just within hospital payments.
Thank you. Yield back.
Speaker 118
Are there additional technical questions? See none, we will move to strike the last word. Mr. Davis is recognized to strike the last word.
Danny Davis
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I support H.R. 5439, the Medically Tailored Home-Delivered Meals Program, introduced by my colleagues Representatives McGovern, Evans, Malliotakis, Pingree, and Fitzpatrick. This bipartisan legislation would establish a nationwide Medicare pilot program to provide medically tailored meals to seniors living with diet-sensitive diseases in the comfort of their own homes. The pilot would test payment and delivery models to help build a more resilient, cost-effective, and patient-centered healthcare system. What distinguishes medically tailored meals from traditional meal delivery programs, such as Meals on Wheels, is their integration with clinical care.
Medically tailored meals are recommended by a healthcare professional, designed by a registered dietitian nutritionist, and individually tailored to address each recipient's medical and nutritional needs. Participants may also receive nutrition counseling, education, and medical nutrition therapy throughout the program. The Food is Medicine Coalition has highlighted research demonstrating the potential benefits of medically tailored meals, including improvements in dietary quality, diabetes management, medication adherence, and overall well-being. Studies have also reported increased fruit and vegetable consumption and reduced saturated fat intake among participants. These findings are particularly important for older Americans managing chronic conditions.
For example, research involving individuals with type 2 diabetes has reported improvements in health outcomes among those receiving medically tailored meals. Other studies have documented reductions in body mass index and improved medication adherence among individuals living with HIV.
While these results are promising, continued research and rigorous evaluation are essential to determine how medically tailored meals can be effectively integrated into Medicare and scaled nationwide. The potential economic benefits also deserve our attention. Additional cost modeling has estimated that medically tailored meals for individuals with diet-sensitive conditions and mobility limitations would avert approximately 2.6 million hospitalizations annually and generate $23.7 billion in net healthcare savings. These estimates illustrate why nutrition should be considered an important component of comprehensive healthcare. However, the Medicare pilot proposed in H.R. 5439 would provide an opportunity to evaluate these potential savings under real-world conditions and identify effective payment and delivery models.
H.R. 5439 recognizes the close connection between nutrition and healthcare. By testing innovative approaches to delivering medically tailored meals through Medicare, this legislation offers opportunities to improve patient outcomes, reduce avoidance healthcare expenditures, and strengthen the connection between clinical care and social determinants of health. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5439 and yield back the balance of my time.
Gwen Moore
Are there additional members that wish to strike the last word? Ms. Moore.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And just let me say, any bill that's offered by Mr. McGovern is an automatic yes for me. But Ms. Malliotakis, I really, really appreciate you as a Republican leading this initiative. And appreciate you, Dr. Murphy, for really reiterating that food is in fact medicine. I have been very quiet today because I've been trying to get out of here.
But I I can tell you that I couldn't resist speaking on this bill that I plan to support without reminding people that food is important for everybody. And as and not just this pilot group of seniors that we are going that are going to benefit from this program under the Social Security Act. Under the Social Services Block Grant fund, which my city uses and people use under HUD, we use this for Meals on Wheels. This is a program that I've had the opportunity to deliver meals to elderly people who swear by it and say that it enables them to stay in their homes. It enables them to be independent.
There are 244 million meals that were provided through the Social Services Block Grant fund last year. That's two and a half million seniors. These are community-based programs. And I am sad to report that so many people among Republicans have voted continuously to destroy the Social Services Block Grant fund. And so I want to remind you that the Social Services Block Grant fund provides meals to you have to be at least 60 years old in order to qualify for the program.
And, you know, it also enables this is also a program that provides eyes on the most vulnerable people. I recall a personal story, my brother, God rest his soul, was non-ambulatory and fell on the floor and was on the floor for three days before someone who was part of the Meals on Wheels program knocked on his door. And when he didn't answer, they called up the janitorial services to open the door for him and found him on the floor for three days because he didn't respond to the knock on the door for Meals on Wheels. And so I know that the Social Services Block Grant fund is in the crosshairs of the Republicans. I know our good friend, the chair of the Budget Committee, Mr. Arrington, proposed that we cut the Social Services Block Grant fund and thank God we did not do that.
And I just wanted to take the time to remind people that people need food. Of course, we cut $1.2 billion, trillion dollars out of SNAP, which only provides $2 per meal per day. And so with regard to the concern that people are going to double dip, the Medicare program that we're voting on here today only provides two meals a day. People need three meals a day, and when you're diabetic, you need four, you need a snack too. You need at least four meals a day.
And so I would caution supporters of this bill who want to feel good about helping seniors to make sure that we do our due diligence and make sure that all seniors have access to good nutrition and the ability to stay in their home by not slashing the Social Services Block Grant fund. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I got 45 whole seconds to yield back to you.
Jason Smith
Thank you so much for those 45 seconds, Ms. Moore. Are there additional members wish to strike the last word? Seen none, we will move to amendments. Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? If there are no amendments, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mr. Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.
Vern Buchanan
Mr. Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H.R. 5439 as amended to the House of Representatives.
Jason Smith
The question is on the motion to favorably report H.R. 5439 as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Speaker 43
Mr. Estes, yes. Mr. Smucker.
Mr. Smucker, yes. Mr. Hern. Mr. Hern, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes.
Speaker 43
Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy, yes. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick, yes.
Mr. Steube. Ms. Tenney. Ms. Tenney, yes. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, yes.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, yes. Ms. Van Duyne. Mr. Feenstra. Mr. Feenstra, yes.
Ms. Malliotakis. Ms. Malliotakis, yes. Mr. Carey. Mr. Carey, yes. Mr. Yakym.
Mr. Yakym, yes. Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, yes. Mr. Bean. Mr. Bean, yes.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran, yes. Mr. Neal. Mr. Doggett. Mr. Doggett, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson. Mr. Larson, yes. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis, yes. Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Sanchez, yes. Ms. Sewell. Ms. DelBene.
Ms. DelBene, yes. Ms. Chu. Ms. Chu, yes. Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore, yes.
Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle, yes. Mr. Beyer. Mr. Beyer, yes. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans, yes. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider, yes. Mr. Panetta. Mr. Panetta, yes.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Gomez, yes. Mr. Horsford. Mr. Horsford, yes. Ms. Plaskett.
Mr. Suozzi. Mr. Suozzi, yes. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes.
Mr. Arrington. Mr. Arrington, yes. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff, yes. Mr. Steube.
Ms. Van Duyne. Mr. Neal. Ms. Plaskett. Ms. Sewell. Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith, yes.
Jason Smith
There being 39 yeses and zero nos, the motion is agreed to and H.R. 5439 as amended is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H.R. 5439 and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional dissenting or minority views. Our next order of business is H.R. 4093, the Apples to Apples Comparison Act, introduced by Representative Bean, which will provide more data and greater transparency around Medicare spending so that lawmakers and seniors can make better informed decisions. Representative Bean brings a practical perspective to this issue and is committed to finding solutions that improve government services while helping our seniors and those most in need of care for.
Representative Bean brings a practical perspective to this issue and is committed to finding solutions that improve government services while helping our seniors and those most in need of care for most need of care and assistance. His bill applies that same focus to Medicare by ensuring that seniors, policymakers, and taxpayers have accurate, understandable, and comparable information to make the best choices for their health and budgets. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bean, for an opening statement.
Aaron Bean
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on the Apples to Apples bill. I am pleased to recognize and thank Representative Hern for his support and co-leading this legislation. I understand this may be one of the last bills that Representative Hern sponsors in the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, fall is back in America. Football's here and we're just weeks away from open enrollment, which means we're going to see Joe Namath on TV asking millions of Americans to reevaluate their Medicare.
And millions will, because right now, Mr. Chairman, you probably already know this, over 50% of seniors have chosen a different Medicare plan, Medicare Advantage, MA as it's called. Over 50%, it's very popular. Sometimes if you agree to a limited network, you can exchange it for greater benefits. Not right for everybody, right for some. And millions, it's great where we get to choose the plan that's best for us.
If you're asking, and you should ask if you're on this panel, do we save money? Are we saving money when a senior chooses Medicare Advantage? We don't know. We don't know because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, doesn't give us the full data. They don't give us.
They're opaque. They're just not giving us the full information that we need. Mr. Chairman, it's like comparing, so when we compare fee-for-service, which is traditional Medicare, fee-for-service against Medicare Advantage, it's like comparing apples to grapefruit. How about that? That's a hard comparison.
What if we had the full data? In carpentry, a bad measurement leads to a bad cut, and once the wood is ruined, there's no easy fix. Lawmaking is no different. When Congress gets the measurement wrong, we get the solution wrong, consequences are far more than lasting than a miscut board. Sound policy requires precision, discipline, and the humility to check our work before we act.
This bill, Apples to Apples, offers a straightforward fix, greater transparency so that we all can have an open debate. Healthcare is kicking our financial fanny, members, and we have to get it right going forward. So let's all agree, more information, open information is better. As Congress looks to the future of the Medicare program, Apples to Apples is the way to go. It gives us the ability to measure twice and reform once.
I invite all of our colleagues, my colleagues, your colleagues, vote yes, get on board the bill, and let's have more information so we can go forward and plan for senior healthcare for our country.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Lloyd Doggett
Well, I believe this bill is a little bit of a misnomer. It really should be called apples to lemons because that's the kind of legislation that we have. You know, long ago in a very different setting with true bipartisan support, this Congress created an independent objective source of advice. That nonpartisan entity is called the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, or MedPAC, not to be confused with the PACs that play such a role in the life of this committee, that are campaign contributors. The big insurance companies who've been profiting so excessively from Medicare Advantage don't like the objective advice.
And it's because it shows that taxpayers are paying them far more than they deserve. And so today, the insurance supporters are urging us to ignore the independent advice and essentially to cook the books. Now, taxpayers are expected to expend up to 700 billion dollars next year on Medicare Advantage. So they got good reason to come here and ask us to cook the books. Ensuring that this program is working well is one of the most important fiscal issues that this committee should be addressing.
Because we know that without changes, the deficit that Medicare is expected to have in just seven years could trigger payment cuts and threaten benefits. This legislation undermines MedPAC's independent work and offers yet another unfair advantage to Medicare Advantage. Now, Medicare Advantage has an interesting beginning. It was first promoted by Newt Gingrich, who claimed that with it, he would let Medicare wither on the vine. He said he was going to save taxpayer dollars and improve the quality of care.
But Medicare Advantage has never saved a dime. Not only MedPAC, which they're trying to correct today in a slanted way, but also the Congressional Budget Office, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and several other nonpartisan researchers and entities have repeatedly said year after year, Medicare Advantage private insurance is costing us billions more than traditional Medicare. These dollars are lost to giant insurers that could instead be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, that could be used to provide benefits such as dental, vision, and hearing claimed by some of these advantage plans. Even if we go to a study of one of the Medicare Advantage plans, Humana, the second largest insurer, they found evidence of significant favorable selection where healthier, less costly consumers are disproportionately enrolled in Medicare Advantage while the sicker, more costly consumers are steered over to traditional Medicare. Humana's findings account for billions in overpayments.
Medicare Advantage is the most profitable area, the plan that private insurers sell. So they want to keep it, and they want to keep getting more taxpayer dollars than they deserve. Insurers get all the advantage while consumers are disadvantaged by strict prior authorization and very narrow networks that are often denying someone to see the doctor of their choice. These flashy supplemental benefits, like payments for rent and groceries, are often merely a marketing tool as consumers discover fine print provisions that they are not qualified for every benefit or that their benefits are strictly limited. As insurers collect higher overpayments for minimal value, every Medicare enrollee pays more in Part B premiums.
It's costing us to do this. Yet this bill directs MedPAC to provide a lopsided study on the supposed value of MA with no analysis of its limitations or the value of traditional Medicare's coverage of the doctor of your choosing, limited prior authorization, and other benefits. Instead, MedPAC is instructed to promote Medicare Advantage and offer recommendations for even more dollars going to private insurers.
If we yield to big insurance now, we're going to have every industry stakeholder from every medical specialty, every group that MedPAC reports on coming in and telling us we don't like the results, so please rewrite the way they calculate them and interfere with the work of this committee and of our independent agency. You might as well set taxpayer dollars on fire at the same time as you toss out the dozens of important recommendations to combat fraud, waste, and abuse and improve program efficiency. This bill doesn't achieve apples-to-apples data analysis; it cooks the books to give the scent of apple pie while masking a burnt, rotten core. And I yield back.
Jason Smith
Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H.R. 4093, the Apples to Apples Comparison Act of 2025. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment.
I will now turn to Patrick Dumont, Health Subcommittee Staff Director, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.
Speaker 108
Thank you, Chairman Smith. H.R. 4093, the Apples to Apples Comparison Act, contains four sections. Section 1 provides for the short title of the bill. Sections 2, 3, and 4 amend sections 1874 and 1805B of the Social Security Act to require detailed reporting and publication of information on Medicare expenditures broken out by geography and beneficiary category. Such reporting will be conducted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and the Medicare Trustees.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical and clerical changes to the bill. This concludes the technical walkthrough.
Speaker 128
Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Mr. Doggett.
Lloyd Doggett
I assume that in developing this bill, you got technical assistance from CMS?
Yes, sir.
Lloyd Doggett
Because you wanted to understand how they would use this bill and whether it would fulfill the purposes of the author.
Correct.
Lloyd Doggett
I would direct your attention to page 9, excuse me, page 9, lines 6 to 10 of the bill, the Chairman's mark, and ask you with reference to that section if it's correct that CMS has told you that you've excluded payments that they receive, the total payments they receive, you're only focused on what they pay out for certain things.
Lloyd Doggett
This is an attempt to define what you're going to have done with the revision of what is reported by the MedPAC. And I'm just pointing out that there's some things that are included and there's some things that are excluded. For example, according to CMS, you're not going to have reports on capitated payments and bonuses.
Speaker 108
Plainly in this entire legislation, this is all additive reporting information; nothing precludes currently reported information from continuing.
Lloyd Doggett
Well, you're going to have them report data. It may be that CMS wants to, I mean that MedPAC wants to add something else, but what this bill is requiring is a new report that focuses on what the insurers pay out but not what they're paid, that excludes capitated payments and bonuses, that excludes data necessary for a full picture of the overpayment of the MA program, now to give a kind of a stamp of approval from an independent MedPAC that they're doing just fine because you require some things to be reported but not other things to be reported.
Speaker 127
Again, nothing in this legislation precludes additional reporting from happening.
Lloyd Doggett
But the specific report, the reason you want apples to apples is that you provided a definition here that does not include the portion of Medicare payments to MA that the plans retain for profit or used for bonuses. You don't include payment adjustments like quality bonus payments nor the actual capitated payments that CMS makes to MA plans. That's the way CMS interprets this provision as I'm sure you know from your technical assistance.
Speaker 130
Yes, and CMS and MedPAC and others still have the ability to report on that information. This legislation does not change that.
Now call on Ms. Chu for strike the last word.
Judy Chu
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This is our last markup before Congress leaves Washington for weeks and Americans are facing a healthcare affordability crisis. They are opening their insurance bills and seeing premiums they cannot afford. They are putting off doctor's appointments. They are leaving prescriptions at the pharmacy because they cannot afford to fill them.
They are choosing between healthcare and groceries, healthcare and rent, healthcare and keeping the lights on. And this administration, this Republican majority in Congress and this committee are not doing anything about it. Instead, we are marking up the so-called Apples to Apples bill, a bill that will not lower a single family's premium by one dollar. It would not lower a single senior's copay. It will not make a single prescription cheaper and it will not help one person afford a doctor's appointment.
And my constituents are supposed to look at this and believe Congress is responding to what they are going through. People are begging Congress to deal with the cost of living. A new national survey found that 70% of Americans are worried about affording healthcare for themselves and their families. One in five Americans has skipped or cancelled a doctor's appointment in just the last three months because they could not afford it. And nearly one in eight people went at least a month without health insurance because they could not afford it.
The American people could not be clearer about what they expect from us. Instead, they're being forced to pay more for healthcare thanks to Trump and Republicans' big ugly bill. This law cut more than one trillion dollars from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. On top of that, Republicans failed to extend the ACA premium tax credits, a move that will result in 4.2 million Americans losing their health insurance. In fact, more than 15 million Americans will lose coverage as a result of this reckless law.
Families cannot afford for this committee and this Congress to waste another opportunity to help them. Yet here we are. Instead of lowering healthcare costs, we are considering legislation that will mask the higher costs of Medicare Advantage over traditional Medicare. MedPAC estimates that Medicare Advantage will cost taxpayers 76 billion dollars more this year than traditional Medicare would have cost for the same beneficiaries. That higher spending also raises Part B premiums for seniors.
But instead of confronting those costs, this bill tells MedPAC to change how it presents the comparison. And in fact, an expert, Dr. Paul Ginsburg, professor in the practice of health policy at USC says, HR 4093 is the most extreme example that I'm aware of in which a stakeholder has worked to undermine MedPAC's independence on the basis of analysis it has done that is not in the stakeholder's financial interests.
This bill would attempt to obtain analytic results more favorable to that stakeholder, in this case the health insurance industry, by dictating to MedPAC how it should conduct its analysis. Should it be enacted, MedPAC would no longer be able to function independently. And this is what we are spending our time on. The American people are not asking for a new Medicare Advantage comparison. They are asking us to make healthcare affordable, with lower premiums, lower deductibles, lower prescription drug costs, and to protect Medicare and Medicaid.
Instead, we are leaving town without doing a single thing in this markup to address the healthcare affordability crisis. Nothing. I yield back.
Ron Estes
Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Bean for five minutes to strike the last word.
Aaron Bean
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and I am delighted that so many colleagues have read this bill, but I don't know if we're on the same page. I don't know if we're apples to apples on the same page because it truly is a transparency bill. And I'm trying to grasp why we as members of Congress and members of the Ways and Means Committee wouldn't want more information as we're going to have to make over the coming years big decisions of how we're going to afford healthcare for for seniors. It's going to be a challenge. So why wouldn't we want more information?
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have given us lots of statistics and information. I'm not sure where they got that information. I think they got it from the industry. I know they didn't get it from CMS because CMS doesn't share that information with us fully. So there was a accusation that we're directing MedPAC.
MedPAC is they work for Congress and they make they present the information to us right now. This bill, let's be clear, does not direct MedPAC at all to call balls and strikes a certain way. It says, here's the full information, MedPAC. What say you in giving us the honest, open information that we can make decisions? Members, we're in debt.
We just hit forty trillion dollars in debt. If we're going to solve debt, we have to solve healthcare. Healthcare in America is is not going where it needs to be. We should be leading the planet on giving superior healthcare in a way that is very affordable, and right now it's not. So we've got big decisions to make.
We need all of the information. So we can choose to vote no on this bill and put our heads in the sand. That's what you're doing. You're saying, I don't want it. Put your fingers in the ear.
I don't want to know the information. Or let's make the information. There's no ulterior motive, but I just as I'm working on a plan to to bring before this committee how we can improve healthcare, it has to have the full information that I can have a reliance on CMS and on MedPAC's reports. And right now we can't say that because we don't know. So it truly is just a transparency full information bill.
I don't know why they don't give us the information now. You would think this bill isn't even necessary. CMS does a lot of great things. It seems like they would just voluntarily give us information, but for whatever reason, it's our job to give them a loving nudge. And we're going to do it in in the way that we pass this bill to give them the nudge to give us the information that we can go forward and lead this country into the next century of of providing the best affordable access of healthcare to our seniors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Ron Estes
Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Beyer from Virginia for five minutes to strike the last word.
Donald Beyer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good policy requires good data. So here are some real data points on Medicare Advantage. This year, American taxpayers will spend an average of nearly 15% more on every Medicare Advantage enrollee than would be spent on traditional Medicare. When you consider that that's more than half of all eligible beneficiaries are now enrolled in Medicare Advantage, that's an astonishing expense.
In fact, Medicare Advantage today has the highest profit margin of any insurance plan offering, nearly double the margins in the individual market and more than double the group plans. We need that data, and American taxpayers need that data. Thanks to MedPAC and other impartial watchdogs like the Government Accountability Office, we have the numbers to know that this is a program in desperate need of real guardrails and oversight. So forcing MedPAC to publish deliberately misleading information about Medicare Advantage will not get rid of those costs. It will only hide them from taxpayers and make it more difficult for us to rein in overspending.
Two months ago, this committee unanimously advanced a bill that required more transparency from Medicare Advantage organizations on how they spend taxpayer dollars. But now we're considering a bill to artificially make MA look less costly than it is. Hiding the data isn't going to get rid of the problem. Instead, we need to advance bipartisan solutions to improve transparency and add guardrails to the Medicare Advantage program. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Speaker 131
Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Murphy for five minutes to strike the last word.
Gregory Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would submit that there is nobody in this room that wants the Medicare Advantage system reformed more than I do. I had quite a tizzy several months ago when the CEOs of our health insurance industry came before us, and I have had the CMO of the largest Medicare Advantage program in my office and basically pointed out what I believe is out-and-out fraud. So there is nobody that wants this system reformed better than I do. It started with a good idea: make people healthier, keep them at home, keep them out of the hospital, but it has been absolutely abused by our insurance industry.
And I hate that somebody has said that this has turned into a Republican protection idea because last I checked last week, the Democratic whip got $100,000 from the United Healthcare CEOs and all their executive suites. That's one way to keep their system going, to keep money flowing from the federal government to a bad program. So if we look and we talk about affordability, we're at a horrible crisis because Obamacare has absolutely failed. Absolutely failed, and that's why we are where we are today. So asking for more information so that we can make real choices and reform a Medicare Advantage system, I am absolutely for.
Because look, as I said in that meeting, I'd turn all these United, and United for sure are the worst offender, but I'd turn all these huge insurance giants to dust and let us start over again because it's become profits above patients, and we're not delivering the healthcare dollars to actually people who take care of patients. So giving information so that we can compare a system, again, started out with a good idea, see where it's gone wrong, where it is in tradition in comparison traditional Medicare, I think is all the greatest idea. It doesn't make healthcare affordable today. It's become unaffordable with Obamacare. Nothing's going to make it affordable today unless we get the information to see where the pressure points are and where we can on a bipartisan basis reevaluate a system that makes it affordable for patients and for those who actually care for patients.
So I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I don't understand the kickback from it because it's literally trying to get more information to reform a system that I hope members of this committee want reformed. That's all it's asking. And so to point out that it's not doing this, not doing that, there are things, plenty of things that CMS can do already. So look, there's no reason to not get more information.
We all know that the system is not working well. So I don't know why, you know, you look at Medicare Advantage paying for things that they shouldn't do, golf club memberships, absolute nonsense. We should be paying things like for healthy food.
Those are the things we should be doing. But we'll find out this data, this information that we need to compare the Advantage program to the traditional program. So I would urge my, my colleagues to, to vote for this. I think it's a good measure. You can never have more information, as I say many, many times, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
That I'll yield back.
Jason Smith
Are there further members who wish to strike the last word? Seen none, we will move to amendments. Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman, at the desk.
Mr. Doggett.
Jason Smith
A point of order has been reserved. Will the gentleman suspend while the amendment is distributed? Proceed, Mr. Doggett.
Lloyd Doggett
We're not suffering from a lack of information. We're suffering from a lack of will of this committee to stand up to insurance giants that are taking tens of hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money in true waste, fraud, and abuse. And this committee hasn't shown the will to stand up to them. And what they're proposing today is to give them a new giant good housekeeping type seal of approval with an official government report that cherry-picks out certain data to make them look better than the reality that exists. And we don't, in our search for new information, lack for sources because it's not just the MedPAC, the independent objective resource that we have, but it's one group after another that has gotten the facts and looked at these Medicare Advantage plans and found out they're a giant disadvantage to the taxpayer and often to those who sign up for them.
Now, Medicare is a federal guarantee that American workers can age with dignity and access to affordable healthcare. That guarantee is under threat by these giant insurance companies. Medicare Advantage insurers have never saved us a penny. They're annoyed that their profiteering is being exposed and that's why we have this rotten apple bill before us to cook the books and change the facts. Insurers will claim that money is spent on consumers with additional benefits from grocery to pest control, maybe even a Joe Namath autographed football.
Hidden in the fine print provisions, however, are restrictions that they don't disclose. Consumers get sucked in by the marketing and often find they're not eligible for the benefits. Ultimately, taxpayers are disadvantaged by paying more while consumers get less. The only advantage in Medicare Advantage are the profits to the private insurers. Instead of excluding and manipulating spending data to favor insurers, we should be focused on collecting information and providing greater transparency on a program that is costing taxpayers so much.
So you say you want more information? This amendment is about giving you even more information. My amendment requires public data on the utilization of these supplemental benefits. How many people got the Joe Namath autographed football? How many got any of the free benefits that were advertised on television?
Let's get that data and find out whether this is the loser that I believe it is. It also requires data on associated enrollee cost-sharing for these supplemental benefits because so often the supplemental benefits have a high cost to the individual consumer who seeks to take advantage of it. And we need more information about prior authorization. Because that's at the heart of it. Whether you can get when you are ill, can you get to the doctor of your choice to get the relief that you need.
With prior authorization continuing to plague providers and consumers where someone asks to see a particular physician and they're denied, or that physician recommends a particular medical intervention and it is denied, my amendment requires information on the number of claims that are denied and the number of claims that are subjected to prior authorization. Finally, as providers continue to report lower reimbursement rates than what they even get under traditional Medicare, we have all these groups coming before us and saying Medicare is not paying enough. Well, some of these Medicare Advantage plans are not even paying as much as Medicare. And my amendment requires that data on those insurer payments be provided if you want more information. We need to lift up the hood and see this kind of transparency, meaningful transparency, but the focus should be on improving Medicare Advantage data collection, not cherry-picking some information to try to look make plans look good when they are actually costing us an immense amount.
And while transparency is good, enough is known already about what we need to do to fight waste and abuse in Medicare Advantage. I have filed the Saving Medicare Act to address the many ways that MA insurers are overpaid, are upcoding, and ensure that it does not cost more than traditional Medicare. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has said, quote, "The Saving Medicare Act puts forward a comprehensive plan to address the underlying causes of excessive MA cost and would substantially reduce deficits, lower healthcare costs for seniors, extend solvency for the Medicare Part A Trust Fund, and address a serious source of waste and abuse in government." That's not a Democratic group. It's got one Republican after another in its leadership.
The gentleman from the who is supporting this measure, authored this measure, says he's concerned about the debt. Well, they are the committee most concerned about the debt and the way it's runaway under Republican leadership, and they say that saving Medicare by addressing these cost overruns from the Medicare Advantage plans and the unjust enrichment that they've received will do much to address our debt and to provide lower costs for seniors. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Kevin Hern
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments because he's actually sharing the same concerns all of us are having about the inordinate cost of Medicare. And, you know, it's rich. I just asked the staff, you know, we had a hearing when we voted this out of committee, much of what's already in this bill as far as transparency, and he's known for over a month now about we're having this markup, and yet the staff says they've received no input from his team. So, you know, I think that it's important to note that we're all concerned about where the costs are. That's why we want the information.
As we've said many times, I'll give the gentleman credit, he has been consistent with this since I've been on this committee. I remember one of the committees we had that have to acknowledge that over 60% of the people that are Medicare eligible, age eligible in his district are on Medicare Advantage, and of those folks, it's a 90% favorability of the program. So there's a disconnect between the cost of the program and what's really going on in the out in the amongst the people. And so we want to get to the bottom of this. The committee should have that data.
We should be able to make very robust decisions about how we move forward and make sure the people who have paid into Medicare their entire lives are getting what they thought they were going to get. So with that, I yield back.
Lloyd Doggett
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to yield my time to Mr. Doggett.
Well, let me say first of all that the gentleman failed to indicate a single reason, since they're so interested in getting more information, why they don't want to get the information that this two-page amendment asks for: enrollee-level data on supplemental benefit utilization of all these gimmicks that are advertised on TV that we will hear over and over again in the next month or so. How much of it's being used by whom?
Why don't you want to know that? The next thing that's up is for each item of service for which a claim was submitted, the number of claims that were denied. How many times are the people that get sucked into these plans denied access to the doctor they want, denied access to the treatment that the doctor recommends? Let's find that out. You don't offer any reason why we shouldn't get that information.
The number of such claims that were subject to prior authorization where the doctor, as Dr. Murphy mentioned, is subject to long waits, call after call to try to get approval for the treatment that that doctor knows is in the best interest of the patient because of his or her medical judgment. The number of out-of-pocket expenditures incurred by enrollees for items and services for which benefits were available under the plan. Why are they afraid to get that information? The amount of payments made by such plan to providers for each such service. No, they're not interested in more transparency and more facts.
They're interested in a phony report that is only designed to make Medicare Advantage look like something that it is not. We don't lack the information, we lack the will to stand up to these insurance carriers and the opposition to this amendment, which would provide more valuable information, makes that very clear. I would also ask Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to enter the following letters into the record expressing strong concerns with this bill from Dr. Paul Ginsburg, a health economics professor and former MedPAC commissioner, Mutual of Omaha, a Medicare supplemental insurance company, and the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a consumer group, three groups that question this bill.
Without objection.
Lloyd Doggett
And I would say with reference to the other comments, yeah, we got a lot of notice of this measure. I heard about it day before yesterday when we got notice, the typical last-minute notice that we receive about measures in this committee. There's been no effort to provide cooperation or collegiality in the consideration of this bill. I raised the concerns about Medicare Advantage at our last hearing in July and talked about the Medicare Advantage legislation that I have to protect taxpayers and get better care to our seniors and individuals with disabilities. This bill of course addresses none of that.
The upcoding that has resulted in billions of dollars going to these insurance giants, revealed by one source after another. Again, not a lack of information, not a lack of public understanding from at least from the experts of the damage being done to Medicare, the threat to its solvency, the inability to provide more Americans better Medicare, all of those things because of the way we have sat here and not policed Medicare Advantage as it should. Yes, perhaps Newt Gingrich is achieving some of his original objective for traditional Medicare to wither on the vine as people are sucked in by these various Medicare promises from Medicare Advantage. But what we need is to reform the system. We have the information to do it.
We can limit these abusive practices, save taxpayers money, and ensure seniors better, more affordable care. I move adoption of the amendment and would think that anyone who wants more information would vote to get it by supporting this amendment. I yield back.
Jason Smith
Mr. Doggett, I want to point out that the notice for this legislation along with every other piece of legislation is timely according to the rules of this committee and it happens to mirror exactly the same notice that your party, you're not recognized. Okay, fine. It is my time, so Mr. Doggett, you cannot speak right now.
You've spoken enough in this thing. So I want to, I want to make it clear, I want to absolutely make it clear, we have followed the rules, and in fact the current rules are exactly the same rules that it was when the Democrats were in the majority. And so if you don't like the rules, change it whenever we have the process. I want to recognize Mr. Smith.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to Mr. Hern.
Kevin Hern
I thank the gentleman for yielding. And my colleague from Texas, you know, everything that you've been referencing we voted out of committee as I mentioned, but I think it's also disingenuous to say we haven't done anything. The chairman brought in the five, I believe it was the five largest insurance companies back in January for a hearing. And I think if you recall, maybe go back and watch some of the videos, my colleague Dr. Murphy did a yeoman's amount of work in pointing out the very things that you have addressed directly with the CEOs of those companies. I would tell you I heard from a lot of folks who watched that, they're in industry, they certainly didn't think it was a cakewalk for them.
I think there was a lot of things pointed out, and Mr. Doggett, yourself, you pointed things out in front of these very same individuals. We all did. And so you start with bringing the people in that are in charge of the areas that you've discussed, we're doing that. We need the information that we can address it as a committee, not some outside group, and we're going to continue to work on this as we go forward. But again, it's disingenuous to say that we think that wasting taxpayer dollars is something that we're all going to acquiesce to.
I think we've moved forward with this, the chairman's done this, and every member on this committee has worked on this and we'll continue to do so. And I yield back.
Ms. Moore.
Gwen Moore
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and I yield my time to Mr. Doggett.
Lloyd Doggett
Well let me say, Mr. Chairman, first I understand your defensiveness about the rules. You complied with the rules by providing us minimum notice. Mr. Hern previously criticized me for not acting sooner because we had so much notice that you were going to do this. We did not have any more notice than this week, and I responded promptly with an amendment and a response. With reference to Mr. Hern's most recent comments that there's something disingenuous about trying to save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, yes, it's correct, as one would expect, that in analyzing the question of the waste and abuse of the Medicare Advantage program, that this committee listened to five of the largest insurance companies in the world that are earning so much money that they are not entitled to out of Medicare Advantage.
Who was called in here from MedPAC to tell us about this, or the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, or any of the other scholars who have analyzed over the years the amount of waste that is occurring in this program? It wasn't there. I've referred in our last meeting to the legislation that I filed on a bipartisan basis concerning those individuals who are receiving care from the Veterans Administration, and yet some insurance companies have gone out and actually recruited them to sign up under Medicare Advantage so that they can take the premiums and the profits while the taxpayer gets hit again by paying for the care that the Veterans Administration provides. That's the kind of thing, Mr. Hern, that this committee could have acted on, but has not acted on, has not brought that bill up despite my request for consideration. The Saving Medicare Act that I've offered has not been given any consideration today, or any of the other provisions for that matter on unrelated or indirect Medicare issues that I've raised, the concern fraud and fighting fraud.
It's great to talk about fraud and abuse. Here we have an example of something that could extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by treating Medicare Advantage with respect but not giving it the excessive profits that it's complained. Here we have something that would be a resource to provide better Medicare for more Americans, and yet it's not being used. But here specifically, while I talk about the general, is an amendment that I have offered to give us more facts from these folks who claim that's what they're only, they're only concerned about getting more facts, more information. And I've suggested that we get a little more information about prior authorization.
We get a little more information about the gimmicks that they advertise on television one right after another and find out whether any of these things that they're advertising once the fine print is applied is actually being made available to the people that they are soliciting. Why not get that information? One thing that we can be sure of is that the Republican response to rejecting the amendment and getting that information is this: complete and total silence. No reason offered or given as to why they're fearful of getting that information to show how unjustified the Medicare Advantage claims are. I yield back.
Jason Smith
Seeing no discussion, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Doggett. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Ms. Van Duyne, no. Mr. Feenstra.
Mr. Miller, no. Mr. Bean.
Mr. Doggett, yes. Mr. Thompson.
Speaker 43
Aye. Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson? Yes. Mr. Larson, yes.
Mr. Davis? Yes. Mr. Davis, yes. Ms. Sanchez? Aye.
Speaker 43
Ms. Sanchez, yes. Ms. Sewell? Ms. DelBene? Aye. Ms. DelBene, yes.
Ms. Chu? Aye. Ms. Chu, yes. Ms. Moore? Aye.
Ms. Moore, yes. Mr. Boyle? Yes. Mr. Boyle, yes. Mr. Beyer?
Yes. Mr. Beyer, yes. Mr. Evans? Yes. Mr. Evans, yes.
Mr. Schneider? Yes. Mr. Schneider, yes. Mr. Panetta? Yes.
Mr. Panetta, yes. Mr. Gomez? Aye. Mr. Gomez, yes. Mr. Horsford?
Aye. Mr. Horsford, yes. Ms. Plaskett? Mr. Suozzi? Aye.
Mr. Suozzi, yes. Mr. Smith of Nebraska? No. Mr. Smith of Nebraska, no. Mr. Schweikert?
Mr. Schweikert, no. Mr. Arrington? Mr. Smucker? Mr. Steube? No.
Mr. Steube, no. Ms. Tenney? Mr. Moore? Mr. Moran? Mr. Neal?
Ms. Sewell? Ms. Plaskett? Chairman Smith? No. Chairman Smith, no.
The clerk will report the vote.
Jason Smith
There being 16 ayes and 21 noes, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments in the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Ms. DelBene.
Jason Smith
A point of order has been reserved. Would the gentlelady suspend while the amendment is distributed? Proceed, Ms. DelBene.
Suzan DelBene
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission is a nonpartisan independent agency that provides Congress with policy analysis and advice on the Medicare program.
Similar to other independent analyses that have been conducted, MedPAC has consistently found that private Medicare Advantage plans are being overpaid with American taxpayer dollars. These plans then force seniors and their providers to navigate complex red tape to access necessary care while Medicare Advantage companies profit. These public findings are bad for Medicare Advantage plans and their friends in the Trump administration who want to privatize Medicare. So what do Republicans do? They introduce the so-called Apples to Apples Act, which would bury these reports and prevent MedPAC from publishing any more.
This is part of a broader pattern. When faced with data or information they don't like, we see Trump or Republicans try to hide that information. The Trump administration did the same thing when faced with questions about RFK Jr.'s WISER program that pays for-profit companies to use AI to delay and deny Medicare claims. When the WISER program was first introduced in 2025, I demanded answers on how the administration planned to protect patients from such a short implementation timeline. Secretary Kennedy and Dr. Oz took almost a year to respond.
And when they did, their answers were vague and ambiguous, only leading to more questions. From the moment that the WISER program began at the beginning of this year, patients and providers began reporting care delays and denials. I demanded transparency from the administration and they have yet to respond. It took the Electronic Frontier Foundation suing the government to get a glimpse into what's going on with the WISER program. Last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released a thousand pages of internal agency documents that detail implementation chaos, explain how these private companies are being paid to deny care, and strategize how to expand this program to every state.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter these documents into the record.
Without objection.
Suzan DelBene
It is clear why the administration is doing everything they can to conceal these documents. The more that Americans learn about WISER, the more outraged they get at the Trump administration for jeopardizing their care and trying to privatize Medicare. And while I'm glad that these documents have been brought to light despite the administration's attempt to conceal them, they raise more questions than answers. In June, the administration told me that the private company operating the WISER model in Washington was put on a corrective action plan following an audit that found significant care delays. This audit, which might give seniors, providers, and policymakers insight into the problems with the program's implementation and potential solutions, was not included in the documents released last week.
My amendment would require MedPAC to analyze the impacts of Medicare Advantage plans' utilization management practices on patients and providers every three years. It would also require the administration to release all previous and future audits and corrective action plans of the private companies implementing the WISER program. Simply put, the goal of my amendment is to cut back on the endless red tape on patients and providers that this administration has implemented, and it would ensure accountability and transparency for private companies that take Medicare dollars. Whether it's doctoring the data in favor of MA plans or concealing the chaos that is the WISER program, Republicans have made clear that they're only interested in transparency when it suits their narrative and lines the pockets of private companies. My amendment is an important step towards accountability and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Jason Smith
Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Ms. DelBene. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 43
Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Buchanan, no. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska, no. Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes. Mr. LaHood. Mr. LaHood, no.
Mr. Arrington. Mr. Estes. Mr. Estes, yes. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Hern.
Mr. Hern, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes. Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy, yes.
Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff, no. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Steube. Ms. Tenney.
Mr. Feenstra. Mr. Feenstra, yes. Ms. Malliotakis. Ms. Malliotakis, no. Mr. Carey.
Mr. Carey, no. Mr. Yakym. Mr. Yakym, no. Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, no.
Mr. Bean. Mr. Bean, no. Mr. Moran. Mr. Neal. Mr. Doggett.
Mr. Doggett, yes. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, yes.
Mr. Larson.
Mr. Davis.
Ms. DelBene, yes. Ms. Chu.
Ms. Chu, yes. Ms. Moore.
Speaker 60
Mr. Suozzi, yes. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Steube.
Speaker 60
Ms. Tenney, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moran. Mr. Neal. Ms. Sewell.
Ms. Plaskett. How is Mr. Estes recorded?
Mr. Estes, yes.
Mr. Estes, no.
How is Mr. Feenstra recorded?
Mr. Feenstra, yes.
Mr. Feenstra, no.
Ms. Miller, no.
Dr. Murphy is a yes.
Dr. Murphy, no.
How is Mr. Arrington recorded?
How is Mr. Hern recorded?
Chairman Smith.
Speaker 149
Chairman Smith, no. Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 18 and the nos are 19.
Jason Smith
There being 18 yeses and 19 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments?
Chairman.
Jason Smith
Ms. Sanchez. A point of order has been reserved, would the gentlelady suspend while the amendment is distributed. You may proceed.
Linda Sánchez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would require Medicare Advantage plans to publicly report payment amounts, but more importantly, denial rates for care delivered in post-acute settings. While I'm sure that Congressman Bean is well-intentioned in providing additional transparency for seniors deciding between Medicare and Medicare Advantage, this bill unfortunately casts a darker shroud over MA plan spending. We need transparency in how Medicare Advantage plans are excluding or denying coverage of post-acute care for seniors. This committee has done good work on reforming prior authorization practices, and it is a bipartisan issue.
In fact, Ms. Van Duyne and I co-led a letter to CMS on network adequacy standards for MA enrollees who need a higher level of care when recovering from a serious illness or injury. We additionally requested that CMS evaluate claims data and prior authorization requests and denials to determine if a patient who needs care in these facilities are not receiving it. And Ms. DelBene and Mr. Kelly, of course, unanimously passed Seniors' Timely Access to Care Act out of the committee just a few months ago.
But unfortunately, MA plans are still denying post-acute care on a daily or weekly basis for members in many nursing homes. In June, the OIG published two reports finding that MA insurers deny more than half of all prior authorization requests for the most expensive types of post-acute care. 65% of requests for stays in long-term care hospitals were denied, and 54% of requests for stays in inpatient rehabilitation facilities were denied. Many of the seniors who need care in LTACs or IRFs are recovering from strokes, falls, hip surgeries, and knee surgeries. I simply ask that we create a little more transparency and accountability for all plans.
It shouldn't matter if they're enrolled in MA or in traditional Medicare, they should get the appropriate care that they need. I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I yield back.
Jason Smith
Further discussion on the amendment? Seen none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Ms. Sanchez, the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. Hern, no. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller, no. Dr. Murphy.
Dr. Murphy, no. Mr. Kustoff.
Mr. Yakym, no. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Beyer, yes. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Gomez, yes. Mr. Horsford.
Speaker 61
Mr. Suozzi, yes. Mr. Arrington. No. Mr. Arrington, no. Mr. Smucker.
Mr. Steube. No. Mr. Steube, no. Mr. Feenstra. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Neal. Mr. Thompson. Aye. Mr. Thompson, yes. Ms. Sewell.
Ms. Chu. Aye. Ms. Chu, yes. Ms. Plaskett. Chairman Smith.
No. Chairman Smith, no.
Clerk will report the vote.
Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 16 and the nos are 23.
Speaker 164
There being 16 yeses and 23 nos, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Judy Chu
Mr. Chair, seniors desperately need relief from rising healthcare costs, yet the bill before us does nothing to lower those costs. That's why I am offering this amendment. While the underlying bill requires a flawed MedPAC comparison between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare, rigging the calculation, my amendment would provide an honest comparison clearly showing what Medicare Advantage overspending is costing seniors in their Part B premiums. Specifically, it would require MedPAC to quantify the impact on premiums overall and what that means for an individual beneficiary every month and every year. Because seniors themselves are helping pay for the higher cost of Medicare Advantage, MedPAC estimates that Medicare will spend $76 billion more on Medicare Advantage this year than it would if those same beneficiaries were enrolled in traditional Medicare.
And those higher payments don't just affect our federal budget. They raise Part B premiums for every Medicare beneficiary. MedPAC estimates that higher Medicare Advantage spending will add approximately $11 billion to Part B premiums this year. That's roughly $175 for every Medicare beneficiary. And that includes seniors who aren't even enrolled in Medicare Advantage.
A senior can choose traditional Medicare, never enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan, and still pay a higher premium because Medicare is spending more on Medicare Advantage. They don't receive the supplemental benefits those additional payments help finance, but they still help pay for them. That's precisely why my amendment requires MedPAC to examine the cost paid by beneficiaries who remain in traditional Medicare and do not receive those benefits.
That's money coming directly out of seniors' pockets at a time when healthcare is already too expensive. The standard Medicare Part B premium jumped nearly $18 a month this year to more than $200. And instead of lowering costs, this Trump administration is ending the Part D premium stabilization demonstration after this year, a program that helped limit premium increases for standalone Medicare prescription drug plans. My amendment is straightforward: if Congress is going to compare what Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare cost, then we should know what that difference is actually costing seniors. At a time when seniors are struggling with the cost of groceries, housing, prescription drugs, and healthcare, this committee should be focused on bringing their costs down, and we certainly shouldn't ignore costs that are being passed directly onto them.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Discussion on the amendment, Mr. Schweikert.
David Schweikert
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, if Congress wants to understand it in depth, um, grab one of the, I think two, three papers or one big paper that the Joint Economic Committee Republicans did on this, or maybe even look at a couple of the floor speeches I did at night where I walked people through the math of how it actually works. But we always have to be very, very careful here; we've got to also tell ourselves the truth. Um, we expect Medicare spending over the next six and a half years to move from, what is it, 1 to 1.1 trillion to 2 trillion. So it doubles in spend.
And the discussions we keep having here are financial engineering. You know, let's, oh, the costs are going, let's shift it to the general fund, let's shift it over here. One day maybe we'll have a conversation of what healthcare actually costs instead of moving around who actually pays. Remember, we're still borrowing $80,000 every second, and it's estimated in about 22 months over half of federal spending will go to those of us 65 and up. Um, it's a much more complex conversation, and the reality, the data's already available, just, and if you want, um, I'll be happy to find the links and send it to anyone who's willing to read it.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Lloyd Doggett
I just want to thank the, uh, colleague for offering this amendment. I think it's important. You know, as we've been debating this and these failed Republican policies, we've learned that the Federal Reserve Board today unanimously raised interest rates instead of lowering them as President Trump insisted, with medical debt not only for seniors, uh, who find themselves in plight, but for all Americans, given the reduction in healthcare coverage, medical debt being so significant, now those individuals who have to borrow to pay for their medical care will pay even higher interest rates, uh, than before. Uh, this is really unfortunate, and I guess we can now be prepared as well, uh, for the 99 countries President Trump has said he will raise tariffs on, so we'll be paying more as well for any goods that come from those 99 countries, since the President was wrongly insisting that the rates be lowered instead of raised as a unanimous Federal Reserve Board said must be done because of Trumpflation and the failures of the Trump economy enabled by the Republicans on this committee. I yield back.
Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
Mr. Miller, no. Mr. Bean.
Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson, yes. Mr. Davis.
Ms. Moore, yes. Mr. Boyle.
Speaker 61
Ms. Tenney, no. Mr. Feenstra. Mr. Neal. Ms. Sewell. Mr. Schneider.
Ms. Plaskett.
How is Mr. Schneider recorded?
Mr. Schneider is not recorded.
Yes, sir.
Chairman Smith, no.
Clerk will report the vote.
Jason Smith
There being 15 ayes and 23 noes, the amendment is not adopted. Are there additional amendments? See none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mr. Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.
Vern Buchanan
Mr. Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H.R. 4093 as amended to the House of Representatives.
Jason Smith
The question is on the motion to favorably report H.R. 4093 as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Ms. Moore.
Speaker 48
Mr. Moran, yes. Mr. Neal. Ms. Sewell. Mr. Gomez. Ms. Plaskett.
Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith, yes.
The clerk will report the vote.
Jason Smith
There being 25 ayes and 15 noes, the motion is agreed to and H.R. 4093 as amended is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H.R. 4093 and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental, additional, dissenting, or minority views. Our next order of business is H.R. 10346, the Stop China's Exploitation of Congolese Children and Adult Forced Labor through Cobalt Mining Act, introduced by Representative Chris Smith, which will strengthen our critical mineral supply chains by shining a light on Communist China companies profiting from child and forced labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's cobalt mines. Cobalt is vital to American life and national security. It is used in life-saving heart stents and in defense technology such as missile guidance systems as well as key technologies that Americans use every day such as smartphones and computers.
Just this month, this committee held a hearing on the importance of strengthening our critical mineral supply chains. Yet more than half of the world's cobalt reserves are in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where companies owned or financially backed by Communist China dominate operations. 15 of the DRC's 19 major cobalt mines that exploit tens of thousands of children and adult forced laborers. Current law bans the import of goods made with forced labor, but tracing its origin once it is processed and included in a downstream product is incredibly difficult. This bill directs the Interagency Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to investigate entities involved in illicit mining activities in the DRC and downstream products that include cobalt mined in the DRC.
These investigations will help Customs and Border Protection to better enforce our laws and protect the integrity of America's critical mineral supply chains. Representative Chris Smith does not sit on this committee, and with two of us already here, three Smiths might be more than one committee can handle, but he has spent decades as Congress's leading voice against human trafficking and forced labor. He worked closely with our committee to craft a bill that will address this terrible behavior. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I now recognize Ms. Sanchez for her opening statement.
Linda Sánchez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I want to be crystal clear that I share the supposed goal of this bill to keep goods that are made with child or forced labor from the Democratic Republic of Congo out of the US market. Unfortunately, in its current form, the bill does not achieve this. The bill doesn't require any specific action. All the bill does is commission a report.
Yet the very agencies tasked with undertaking this investigation and conducting trade enforcement, such as the International Labor Affairs Bureau at the Department of Labor, have been dodged by the Trump administration. So the Republican strategy here appears to be to require agencies to do an investigation all while dismantling said agency. Um, that just doesn't add up. Even if we ever get a report, one more report on forced labor in the DRC cobalt mines won't help solve the problem. Forced labor, child labor, and concerns with China's investment in the DRC are already well documented, including by the United States government.
We already have the tools in place. Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 prohibits the import of goods into the US made by forced and child labor and subject to Customs and Border Protection seizure. So if we all acknowledge that forced labor in the DRC is a serious problem, why not use this opportunity to require action to curb the imports of goods made with forced labor from the DRC? I mean, that would be logical. That would be rational because that would be something that would actually address the problem.
We can't also ignore the context of this bill. The Trump administration negotiated backroom critical minerals deal with the DRC in the midst of an ongoing violent conflict. House Republicans refused to call out the Trump administration for the impact on child labor then, and they're refusing to do anything about it now. At minimum, at minimum, this bill should mandate transparency on the critical minerals agreement and establish safeguards so that we can secure critical minerals in the DRC, but not at the expense of child labor or forced labor from the local communities. But this bill doesn't do any of that.
It does not strengthen enforcement. It does not restrict imports. It does not establish standards for workers, and it doesn't protect a child in the DRC who is forced to work in a cobalt mine. We need legislation with teeth, something that mandates trade enforcement action, not just another report. Otherwise, all that we're doing is paying lip service to a very serious humanitarian problem.
And I for one did not join Congress to ignore serious problems. I am ready to work with my Republican colleagues to take meaningful action to fight forced labor in the DRC, but we need a bill that actually does something to fix the problem, not commission another unnecessary report, which is just busy work. And with that, I yield back.
Jason Smith
Thank you. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H.R. 10346, the Stop China's Exploitation of Congolese Children and Adult Forced Labor through Cobalt Mining Act.
Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. At this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with the green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Josh Sneed, Trade Subcommittee Staff Director, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction. I ask that members hold their questions until after his presentation.
Josh Sneed
Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Moore. H.R. 10346 includes four sections. Section one sets out the short title, which is the Stop China's Exploitation of Congolese Children and Adult Forced Labor through Cobalt Mining Act. Section two sets forth findings, including the importance of cobalt for the production of smartphones, laptops, electric vehicles, and other electronic products, the world's dependence on the Democratic Republic of Congo for its cobalt supply, the control by Chinese firms of many cobalt mines in the DRC, and the numerous reports from credible sources of significant concerns regarding the use of forced labor in the DRC mining sector. Section three requires the Interagency Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to complete and submit to this committee, as well as the Senate Committee on Finance, the results of an investigation into alleged use of forced labor in the cobalt mining industry of the DRC.
Among other things, this report must identify a list of entities in the DRC that potentially mine or process cobalt using forced labor, as well as categories of downstream products that include cobalt mined in the DRC. This section also requires updates to Congress on any actions U.S. Customs and Border Protection has taken to enforce the U.S. ban on importation of products made with forced labor with respect to cobalt mined in the DRC and recommendations for future efforts, initiatives, and tools to be adopted to aid in that enforcement. Finally, section four defines key terms used in the act. That concludes my technical walkthrough. I'm happy to answer any questions members have.
Lloyd Doggett
Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seen none, we will move to strike the last word. Does any member wish to strike the last word? Mr. Doggett.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, of course, all of us should be opposing forced labor wherever it occurs. While the bill author, our colleague Chris Smith, is a valued human rights advocate, Donald Trump has made very clear his attitude toward African countries. I won't repeat his full expletive, but he referred to them as blank-hole countries. And I would imagine that any complete and honest report that would come out of this would show what is obvious.
This president, who cares so little about children in Texas who are denied access to a family physician, could care less about what is happening to Congolese children. And we've seen ample evidence of that, not only in his expletives, but in his conduct with regard to the Congo. In fact, the children for whom this bill is named are in a real hole, a giant pit in the ground in Katanga, where they dig cobalt with their hands, cobalt that ends up in our batteries and in our phones. What these children need is action, not a study to measure how big the hole is. The racism that permeates this administration prevents them from acting on behalf of these little black children digging holes, some as young as seven years old, in the Congo.
We already know how big that hole is and how little the regime cares about these desperate Congolese children. In December, the Trump regime signed a strategic partnership with the Congo, a right of first offer on its critical minerals, majority ownership for American companies, a demand not that the Congo or that it would do anything about these children who are exposed to such desperate provisions, but that the Congo must amend its constitution this year to provide these special provisions and that it must afford a ten-year, ten-year decade tax holiday.
Nothing mentioned in this agreement about children, about forced labor, about environment or anything else other than how American companies can exploit to the maximum the resources of the Congo. Last August, under the leadership of trade ranking member Sanchez, 52 of us joined in warning in advance about the human cost of this critical minerals agreement before it was ever signed and alerted the administration, not that they truly needed an alert, about the conditions that these Congolese children and workers were facing. Within weeks of the signing of this deal, the Congo suspended every artisanal cobalt processor in the country, closing the traceable channel, not the pits. Not one child came out of the ground. Industrial operators welcomed it.
Two million artisanal miners did not. So we secured the cobalt so that we can compete with China, but we also compete with them in our total disregard and disinterest in the conditions of these children. At the same time, the Trump regime had the opportunity to address those issues, but it left the children out of the deal, it didn't consult any of those groups that were concerned about these conditions in the Congo or in this country. We aren't short of information on mining in the Congo. Our own Labor Department placed Congolese cobalt on its list of goods produced by child labor, not now, but 17 years ago.
We have known for almost two decades the terrible conditions there. The same group of colleagues that joined with Ms. Sanchez wrote the President before he signed the deal with the facts of an estimated 350,000 cobalt miners in the Congo, 80,000 work under conditions of forced labor, and roughly 40,000 are children. The Congo is supplying three-quarters of the world's cobalt and it's the cobalt and not the children that have obtained any assistance. What this bill does is direct the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to report back in six months what we already know. And it leaves a gap you could drive a truck through in that it does not include any information about finished goods, autos, phones, and other manufactured goods that contain cobalt.
We've been here before. Ms. Moore offered an amendment that I hope she offers again today on this problem when we considered it in 2024. The Republicans rejected her amendment and then never even brought the bill to the floor after it passed. Congolese civil society groups, Friends of the Congo and Action for the Congo, recognize this bill will accomplish nothing and they have urged us to vote no, which I would also urge our colleagues to do, to reject this in favor of more meaningful action concerning the tragedy that is ongoing in the Congo. I yield back.
Gwen Moore
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And boy, oh boy, oh boy. You know, I really wished we had had another Smith on this panel. I wish Chris Smith had come to members of the Ways and Means Committee in the majority so that we could really made this bill a robust bill. I just want to thank the Chairman for recognizing that forced labor continues to be an issue with mining critical minerals in the in the DRC, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
And our Bureau of International Labor Affairs, while we're considering a study, they've already told us that children as young as five years old mine for mine and they're forced to work at mines with their families in situations of bonded labor, while other children are sent away to the mines by their parents to pay off the family's debt. Child miners are paid little, if anything, and if they're at all. These mines are controlled and patrolled by military officers or armed groups which force children to work. Some children are abducted to work in the mines. I served on the House Financial Services Committee in 2010, and I had a gavel at that point, people.
And I was the ranking member on the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee. I was there when we passed Dodd-Frank, Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank and the SEC's related conflict minerals rule, which helped to improve the global mineral supply chain transparency and break the links between the minerals trade and the violent conflict in the DRC. This provision was passed in light of significant concerns that the exploitation and trade of these minerals by armed groups helped to finance conflict in the DRC and contributed to an emerging humanitarian crisis. Transparency reforms are an important part of a much broader peacebuilding and good governance effort in the DRC that must be further expanded. Again, I personally think we've investigated the problem enough, and I agree with Mr. Doggett that we need to do something.
The information that we have is extensive. I agree that these minerals should not enter the US market unless the Communist Party of China determines by clear and convincing evidence that the Congo, that the Congo determines by clear and convincing evidence that minerals weren't produced with child labor. I will have further to say on this, Mr. Chairman, because I do have an amendment that I'd like to bring forward. And with that, I would just yield back.
Jason Smith
Additional members wish to strike the last word? Seen none, we will move to amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 178
A point of order has been reserved. Will the gentlelady suspend while the amendment is distributed? You can proceed.
Gwen Moore
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is meant to improve this bill. As I indicated earlier, I was the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade and helped write Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act. And I just must say that cobalt is not the only critical mineral that is mined in the DRC. It's not the only critical mineral where forced labor has historically been prevalent.
It's not the only critical menu, mineral that finds its way into our cell phones and other finished products at all.
Children as young as five years old mine for copper, gold, tin ore, and tungsten, which are located in the DRC. At a minimum, Mr. Chairman, we need to broaden the scope of the examination to all conflict minerals in the DRC. And we need to prevent not only cobalt, but copper, gold, lithium, tantalum, tin, and tungsten mined with forced labor in the DRC from entering the United States and other country markets. I urge my colleagues to consider my amendment if we're really concerned about protecting the supply chain from products and minerals produced by forced labor. And I yield back.
Any discussion on the amendment? Mr. Davis.
Danny Davis
Chairman, I'd like to associate myself with the comments made by Mr. Doggett as well as Representative Moore. I strongly support her amendment and I yield back.
Further discussion on the amendment? Seen none. Oh, Mr. Smith.
Jason Smith
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly thank you and thank my colleagues for working on this very important bill. We know that the supply chain challenges, well, there are challenges with our supply chains for a number of reasons. And I think a concerted effort such as this for cobalt makes so much sense. We know that the forced labor issue is already addressed in other parts of federal statutes and requirements and quite frankly expectations.
So I urge adoption of the bill overall and really appreciate everyone's work on this effort. Thank you, I yield back.
Gwen Moore
Question. I just didn't hear what you said. Did you say that the other minerals are mentioned in other parts of the statutes?
No, the forced labor concerns are already addressed in other parts of statutes.
Jason Smith
Further discussion on the amendment? Seen none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Ms. Moore. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Speaker 43
Ms. Tenney? Ms. Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach? Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore, no. Ms. Van Duyne? Ms. Van Duyne, no. Mr. Feenstra? Ms. Malliotakis?
Ms. Malliotakis, no. Mr. Carey? Mr. Carey, no. Mr. Yakym? Mr. Yakym, no.
Mr. Miller? Mr. Miller, no. Mr. Bean? Mr. Bean, no. Mr. Moran?
Mr. Neal? Mr. Doggett? Mr. Doggett, yes. Mr. Thompson? Mr. Thompson, yes.
Mr. Larson? Mr. Larson, yes. Mr. Davis? Mr. Davis, yes. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez, yes. Ms. Sewell? Ms. DelBene? Ms. DelBene, yes. Ms. Chu?
Ms. Chu, yes. Ms. Moore? Ms. Moore, yes. Mr. Boyle? Mr. Boyle, yes.
Mr. Beyer? Mr. Beyer, yes. Mr. Evans? Mr. Evans, yes. Mr. Schneider?
Mr. Schneider, yes. Mr. Panetta? Mr. Panetta, yes. Mr. Gomez? Mr. Horsford?
Mr. Horsford, yes. Ms. Plaskett? Mr. Suozzi? Mr. Suozzi, yes. Mr. Schweikert?
Mr. Schweikert, no. Mr. Hern? Mr. Hern, no. Mr. Steube? Mr. Steube, no.
Mr. Feenstra? Mr. Moran? Mr. Neal? Ms. Sewell? Mr. Gomez?
Ms. Plaskett? Chairman Smith? Chairman Smith, no.
Clerk will report the vote.
Jason Smith
Mr. Chairman, the yeses are 15 and the nos are 25.
There being 15 nos, 15 yeses and 25 nos, the amendment is not adopted. Are there additional amendments? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I now recognize Mr. Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.
Vern Buchanan
Mr. Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H.R. 10346 as amended to the House of Representatives.
Jason Smith
The question is on the motion to favorably report H.R. 10346 as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 43
Mr. Buchanan? Mr. Buchanan, yes. Mr. Smith of Nebraska? Mr. Smith of Nebraska, yes. Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert? Mr. LaHood? Mr. LaHood, yes. Mr. Arrington?
Mr. Arrington, yes.
Mr. Estes.
Mr. Davis, yes. Ms. Sanchez.
Jason Smith
There being 32 yeas and 8 nays, the motion is agreed to and H.R. 10346 as amended is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H.R. 10346 and that members have two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental, additional, dissenting, or minority views. Before, um, before we move on to the, um, last piece of legislation, I just want to acknowledge that this will probably be the last hearing we will have with us, um, Mr. Kevin Hern, um, before I trust he becomes one of those people over on the dark side, on the Senate side. But Kevin joined this committee in, in 2021. The first Oklahoman, I believe, to sit on this committee in, in more than, more than 20 years.
And Kevin is a, is a self-made, self-made guy. He grew up, um, in a household with no indoor plumbing and no running water. Um, and he built a business of, of dozens of McDonalds in the Tulsa area. Um, he understands, he understands what it's like and the cost it takes to make a payroll and to sign the front of a paycheck, not just the, the back. And, um, he knows our tax code because he's paid a lot of taxes, um, um, because he's been a small business owner and he's had to, had to pay attention to that.
But he brought that experience to the Health Subcommittee. He brought it, um, on the Tax Subcommittee. Kevin, you, um, brought it to the table when we were writing the, the one big beautiful bill. Um, and we're grateful. We're grateful for that.
I still remember when, um, Kevin welcomed the Ways and Means Committee to the second field hearing in Yukon, Oklahoma, where we heard from farmers and ranchers and, and oil and gas producers, um, and showed us incredible hospitality. Um, this committee is going to miss, miss your voice. It's been a solid voice to this committee and we will miss it. We'll know you'll be on the other side of the building and you'll be one of the normal ones. And so we appreciate that and I just want to say that we're going to miss you.
Oh, there you are. Thank you. Okay, I recognize the ranking member who's on the bottom dais.
Richard Neal
Temporarily. Uh, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I want to recognize Kevin as well and I call him Kevin, not Congressman. A real friend and decent, even when we had conversations many, many times. He always, uh, was a great student of the institution, kept his sense of humor, and fundamentally lacked malice.
Thanks, Kevin.
Kevin Hern
If I may, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I appreciate your leadership, your guys' candor and the work you're doing. And, uh, this is the greatest committee that's ever existed. And this will be what I miss about the House of Representatives.
And, uh, if you're not on this committee, I don't know what you do in this place. But, uh, this is a great place to be. It touches so many people. And, uh, I fought to get on here in the minority, limited seats. And, uh, this has really been a special place.
It'll be a place that I forever remember. So thank you all so much for being great colleagues. Thank you.
Jason Smith
Thank you, Kevin. Our last order of business is H.R. 10356, the Empowering Moms Act, introduced by Representative Fischbach. Representative Fischbach co-chairs the House Pro-Life Caucus and has established herself as a leading voice for moms and families. She recognizes that supporting mothers means more than helping them through pregnancy. It means connecting them with the resources that they need to raise healthy children.
This bill builds on that commitment by making it easier for pregnant women and new mothers to find health, financial, and other supportive services in their community through moms.gov. The bill codifies efforts by the Trump administration to build a comprehensive resource hub to offer guidance and information to support the health and well-being of mothers and families. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Fischbach, for an opening statement.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Chair, thank you so much for bringing the Empowering Moms Act before the committee today. You know, for me, the pro-life movement has never been just a set of talking points. Being pro-life means standing with expectant and new mothers, newborns, and toddlers, and the entire family. And our message is simple.
We tell mothers they are not alone. The abortion industry pressures women into believing that abortion is their only path forward, isolating them from life-affirming support they deserve. Under the previous administration, federal agency weaponized their authority to stifle organizations that provide real help to women. They even attempted to strip funding from pregnancy resource centers, which actually support and protect both mothers and children. The Empowering Moms Act is built from a provision in my original Moms Act, which aims to ensure every mother has the medical, financial, and emotional tools she needs to raise a healthy child.
This legislation codifies and expands moms.gov into a centralized directory connecting mothers to local community support, starting with pregnancy resource centers and federally qualified health centers. Pregnancy resource centers serve as the frontline of compassionate community care. Nationwide, thousands of these centers serve millions of families every year by providing free medical care, ultrasounds, parenting classes, formula, diapers, so much more, and the support that mothers need. The Empowering Moms Act ensures that when a mother needs it most, she is immediately connected to local health providers and pregnancy centers. Moms.gov provides information on prenatal diagnoses, primary care, baby supplies, housing and childcare support, mental health resources, parenting classes, adoption, and alternatives to abortion.
Taxpayer dollars must promote life, not end it. It also directs the Department of Health and Human Services to publicize federal funding opportunities for local pregnancy resource centers and health providers, ensuring that resources are easy to access and dedicated to supporting their life-affirming mission of helping mothers and families. Every child deserves to be welcomed and protected by law, and every mother must be supported in her decision to choose life. The Empowering Moms Act puts local support directly into the hands of American families. I urge my colleagues to support the Empowering Moms Act, and Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Danny Davis
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, mothers and families are suffering under increasing strains caused by the Trump economy. The president's tariffs and the Iran war have driven up prices for everyday necessities, including sharp increases in food prices and record high gas prices.
Wages are not keeping up with inflation, and parents can't find affordable childcare that allows them to work. A few weeks ago, the Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support had the honor of hearing from Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, the founder of MomsRising, that represents millions of moms across the country. I asked her, what do moms need from Congress? Her list was clear. She stated that moms need affordable childcare that meets their children's needs.
Moms need paid family leave when they have a new child or a serious medical issue so they can care for themselves or their families without fear of losing their jobs. Moms need the child tax credit to help them pay for the skyrocketing cost of basic necessities. And moms need healthcare so they can work and care for their families. Families need real assistance now, not an expansion of a problematic website. This bill is not what moms asked for and is not what they need.
Instead of truly helping moms, this bill and the Trump administration want to help anti-abortion centers find funding and hide information about health clinics and hospitals from pregnant women. Sadly, we know from experience that so-called crisis pregnancy centers put women's lives at risk. But my Republican colleagues have refused to even require crisis pregnancy centers to provide medically accurate information. And now they want to direct money to them, but not to families that are struggling. Contrary to the Chairman's assertion that this biased and inaccurate website will help moms navigate a confusing landscape of local resources, this bill will make it much harder and more confusing.
This resource directory will intentionally exclude any resource that has even an affiliation with a hospital providing healthcare to women that a political appointee at Health and Human Services labels an abortion. As a result, the website might exclude the only provider of women's healthcare in some communities and especially in tribal nations, or even exclude a home visiting program or prenatal care program simply because they partner with a hospital that honors a woman's right to choose or even provides appropriate miscarriage care. I'm also alarmed that this bill lacks any confidentiality of the sensitive information it collects. Health and Human Services could sell or gift this private information to crisis pregnancy centers, other extremist organizations, or even for-profit businesses to harass Americans. This bill provides no money for childcare or paid leave or health insurance or food or job training.
None. This bill is just another gift for Trump supporters to access and profit off our private data. And even if the website envisioned by this bill wasn't clearly intended to promote an ideological agenda overseen only by Secretary Kennedy and his record number of political staff, Congress shouldn't be giving women lists of private organizations to beg for help as the solution to their current struggles. Congress should invest in an economy with good-paying jobs, lower prices, and paid leave and child care that would give all parents a fair shot at moving up the economic ladder. And I yield back.
Jason Smith
The committee will now proceed to consideration of H.R. 10356, the Empowering Moms Act. Without objection, the measure will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And at this time, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was distributed in advance along with a green sheet explaining it. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read, open for amendment any point, and considered base text for purpose of amendment. I will now turn to Cheryl Freeman, Work and Welfare Subcommittee Staff Director, to provide a technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute with an emphasis on the changes made since introduction.
I ask that members hold their questions until after her presentation.
Cheryl Freeman
Thank you, Chairman Smith. H.R. 10356, the Empowering Moms Act, adds a new subsection M titled Resource Directory for Moms to section 511 of the Social Security Act, which authorizes the Maternal, Infant, Early Childhood Home Visiting Program. The bill requires HHS to update the moms.gov website within one year of enactment to include a clearinghouse of relevant resources available to pregnant women, postpartum women, and women with young children. Relevant resources are defined to include federal, state, local, and private resources that serve pregnant and postpartum women and women with young children. The bill also prohibits the website from listing prohibited entities defined generally as an entity that performs or counsels in favor of abortions other than an abortion that is a result of rape, incest, or places the woman in danger of death.
The bill authorizes a grant program to states to establish or support a state-level system that aggregates relevant resources and requires within 180 days of updating moms.gov, the Secretary must submit a report to Congress that includes information about website traffic and user feedback on the website's accessibility. Finally, the bill requires HHS to compile and maintain a list of federal funding opportunities for nonprofit and healthcare entities for pregnancy support services. As reflected on the green sheet, the chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute modifies H.R. 10356 on page 10 by inserting a new 12 with links to information regarding Maternal, Infant, Early Childhood Home Visiting services provided through the use of a grant made under subsection C. These changes are consistent with the intent of the provisions to correct references and make conforming changes. Mr. Chairman, that completes my walkthrough.
I'm happy to answer technical questions.
Mike Thompson
Thank you. Are there any technical questions about the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Freeman, for your explanation. I was just concerned about, I went to this website and it says it lists different products that are available, and you referenced that in your statement.
Speaker 184
Where do those products come from and who determines who which products are on the website?
Speaker 186
So the bill would require updating of the existing resources on the website to include what the bill defines as relevant resources. And those are to be developed via criteria that the Secretary establishes and essentially aggregated through collection from states. And the Secretary goes through a process of aggregating those resources and ensuring that they meet the criteria that are in the bill.
Speaker 184
So if I had a product and I wanted to put it on that website, I'm assuming it's a product that somebody sells and the website I guess gives a stamp of approval of that of that product. Who determines that it's something that's fit for the website, something that's fit for consumers and their children and it meets all the requirements of fair pricing and and safety, etc.?
Speaker 186
The the website primarily has links to resources versus products. But either way, the Secretary is the one that ultimately would develop those criteria and determine what resources are listed on the website that are received from states.
Speaker 184
And are there guidelines or is the Secretary able to just decide on his own what the what those resources are and what the criteria for approval of a specific resource is?
Speaker 186
The bill does define what relevant resources are and defines a list of categories of relevant resources that are to be used by the Secretary.
Mike Thompson
So it's my understanding there's no restrictions, however, on what those resources are. So the bill doesn't say it has to be safe, it has to be certified by whomever.
Speaker 189
The only restriction is the prohibited entities restriction that is in the bill.
Could you say that again, please?
Speaker 187
The definition of prohibited entities definition in the bill is the restriction on what is included as a relevant resource in the website.
And what is that?
Cheryl Freeman
The definition of prohibited entities includes is generally defined as an entity that performs or counsels in favor of abortions. It does include the Hyde Amendment general exception, which is other than abortion that is the result of rape or incest or places the woman in danger of death. These are the prohibited entities included in the bill.
Speaker 184
But nothing else. Nothing that says, you know, the product has to be made by can't be made by child slave labor from some other country. The product has to be cleared by the medical professionals that it won't do harm to the child, anything like that.
The bill does not speak to that.
That would be correct.
Okay, thank you.
Gwen Moore
Now recognize Ms. Moore for five minutes for technical questions.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to know about the prohibited entities since you made that a plural. What organization, I'm looking at page seven of the mark, and it's an essential community provider described in section 156.235 of title 45 Code of Federal Regulations. Is that how many entities does that include is under that statute?
Cheryl Freeman
Yes, Ms. Moore. An essential community provider is this section is referring to a Medicaid-related definition. Generally these are federally qualified health centers and serving predominantly low-income medically underserved individuals.
Gwen Moore
So they're not prohibited. I'm looking under prohibited entity, and then I cited numeral two. And so an essential community provider, 156.235 of Title 45, that's a qualified healthcare center that's prohibited?
Speaker 197
That provides abortions, except in cases described in three of that section.
Gwen Moore
Okay, so, so it's broader than just Planned Parenthood. Is that, is that correct? Like a...?
Gwen Moore
Okay. So, looking, I'm still looking at page seven. And I'm looking under subpart Roman numeral three, financial assistance, work opportunities, nutrition assistance, childcare and educational opportunities for parents. But when we go to the website, why does it not lead us as it does, you know, we have very specifically named institutions like the, the, this website, moms.gov, the National Safe Haven Alliance, the pregnancy centers. Why, why does this not direct people who might be looking for resources to the TANF program, or to SNAP, or to WIC?
Why is it just enumerated and generalized? If this is a resource that we're putting the framework for that together, we figured out that we need to put the National Safe Haven Alliance in and pregnancy centers, but we're very vague as to things that would really help women, I mean, like WIC, like SNAP. So was that an oversight, do you think, in drafting it?
Cheryl Freeman
Thank you. I think that the generally, the categories that are listed under the definition of relevant resources are generally described and could be inclusive of what you're describing, but they are general categories and topic areas in...
Gwen Moore
But they're not cited at all in moms.org. You have no idea that there's food assistance available to do it. It's just that they're not, they're not defined as a resource. And they could be excluded even as a tangential connection to abortion, like a hospital partnering with a food bank or tribal health clinic affiliated with a hospital. And so I'm concerned.
And thank you so much, Ms. Fryman or Freeman.
Freeman.
Gwen Moore
Freeman. Thank you so much for your walk-through. But I, I just, I'm just noting, Mr. Chairman, that with my last 44 seconds, that the terms are not connected. This is not connected with resources that could find their way, could get a grant under the grant portion. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Ron Estes
All right, thank you. Are there any other technical questions to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? See none, I'll go to strike the last word. Does anyone wish to strike the last word? And I'll call on Mr. Smith from Nebraska.
Jason Smith
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We know that starting a family comes with significant responsibilities, challenges, and important decisions about the future. Whether raising children, planning for a family's long-term future, or navigating the adoption process, families often face complicated systems at very consequential moments in their lives. That's why moms.gov was created, to be a one-stop shop for pregnancy resource centers, adoption agencies, and other services for women who are hoping to become mothers. Whether they are facing an unexpected or difficult pregnancy, considering adoption, seeking assistance with infant care, or looking for mental health services, moms.gov is a resource focused on supporting women in promoting the life of born and unborn children.
Every life has value, and I'm glad we are taking time today to advance a measure which reflects this. This is a common-sense approach to ensuring the services and programs which already exist are accessible to families. I certainly commend Congresswoman Fischbach for your very persistent and diligent work on these issues. Our country is better for it. This is a great piece of legislation that will help build a nationwide culture of support for parents.
I yield back.
Ron Estes
Thank you, and I now recognize Mr. Doggett for five minutes for strike the last word.
Lloyd Doggett
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What a day it has been, a long day in a committee that has the power to do so much good, and yet today has done so little of it, devoting most of its time to helping two powerful special interests, one with big lobbies and big pockets at campaign time, another an insurance lobby that is taking billions of dollars in waste and abuse that could be used to better purpose. And now we come to this bill, a bill that really isn't about helping families, it's about promoting more anti-choice propaganda. A mom that is struggling to put food on the table, particularly after the cutbacks in the food assistance program, can't feed her children with this propaganda. The many mothers who are out there looking for childcare so that they can participate in the workforce are not going to be able to find it from this kind of propaganda.
What we need to deal with is a crisis that extremist Republicans have created, not waste funds on phony health clinics that use medical jargon and have staff in scrubs to deceive women, yet most of the more than 2,600 of these centers do not include a single licensed medical professional. Instead, they rely on fearmongering and misinformation to discourage vulnerable women from making the best medical choice for them. I'm all for empowering mothers. In fact, I think of one woman who wanted to be empowered as a mother, my friend Amanda Zurawski from Austin. When she found out the crushing news that she had a non-viable pregnancy instead of the child she so desperately wanted, that this threatened her life, she was forced to wait until she was on the brink of death with a sepsis infection before she could receive necessary care.
This is a product of the reactionary Texas anti-abortion law that denies prospective mothers who find themselves in a tragic condition the healthcare that they need. And the next logical step, of course, has been now recognized in the Texas Republican platform, that they want to prosecute women who have an abortion. This is a crisis that needs attention. I think also of Kaitlyn Kash, an Austin mother who was eager to have a third child. Because her physicians were too scared to deliver basic healthcare to her in a reproductive emergency like severe hemorrhaging, she also came close to death.
This doesn't need to happen, but extremism gets ahead of good medical advice and the opportunity of physicians and other healthcare providers to provide the assistance needed for these women. We need strong women's healthcare. We need the Health Protection Act that we've advocated for so long. I'm concerned that these cases we know about, but there are many others where young women have tragically died because of delayed miscarriage care that physicians were too intimidated to provide. The death certificates for so many of them should list as the cause of death the Republican abortion ban.
Medical professionals are leaving Texas and other states, sometimes their professions entirely, because of these vigilante laws and interference with their best judgment and medical training. At a time of worsening shortages, recruitment of new physicians is just as bleak with about 60% of third and fourth year medical students across specialty saying they're unlikely to apply for a residency in a state like Texas with these draconian abortion restrictions. Meanwhile, Republicans continue their march to eliminate reproductive freedom everywhere. Republicans don't even believe in giving information about birth control through this website. Nothing in this bill for those trying to responsibly plan when they have or expand a family.
This entire bill is really just a Republican mandate for motherhood. For every Texan being offered fewer rights than their grandmothers, for every expectant parent whose life is threatened by Republican political interference, I strongly oppose this bill and yield back.
Speaker 196
Thank you. I now recognize Mr. LaHood for five minutes to strike the last word.
Darin LaHood
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. In just over two years, President Trump and his administration have taken historic steps to deliver for American families and provide support for mothers and new parents across the country. Earlier this Congress, we passed H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, to prohibit discrimination against pregnancy resource centers by clarifying that TANF funds can be used to support these centers providing critical support for expectant moms. Similarly, today, this bill builds on those efforts and supports the Trump administration's work to strengthen American families by considering the Empowering Moms Act, introduced by my friend from Minnesota, Ms. Fischbach, a leader for advancing pro-life policies.
This bill codifies and builds on moms.gov, launched by the administration on Mother's Day, as a central clearinghouse of resources for expectant and parenting mothers. According to an NIH study, nearly eight out of ten pregnant or postpartum women reported having at least one unmet social need such as infant and family supplies, food, and support for paying utilities. This legislation will provide a central hub of comprehensive resources that provides mothers with health information, mental health services, and ways to access other material support they may need to care for themselves and their child so that they can be successful parents. On the Work and Welfare Subcommittee, we often hear from witnesses about how difficult it is to access federal programs because they have to navigate a complex web of resources and programs. The Empowering Moms Act will address this problem by making it easier for expectant and parenting mothers to connect with federal, state, local, and private resources in their communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back.
Ron Estes
Thank you. I recognize Mr. Thompson for five minutes to strike the last word.
Mike Thompson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. I'm wondering who profits from this website.
The bill allows moms.gov to direct women toward private resources, including resources involving clothing, household goods, and baby supplies. And remarkably, the bill says administration of this website cannot be delegated below the office of secretary. That's Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. So what safeguards prevent Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. and his office from steering mothers towards particular private companies? And that's not a hypothetical concern.
Donald Trump Jr. is a director and shareholder of PSQ Holdings. PSQ owned EveryLife, a company that sells diapers, wipes, training pants, and other baby products. PSQ has agreed to sell EveryLife, but its latest SEC disclosure says that the transaction is still expected to close by September 30th. So could moms.gov direct mothers towards EveryLife? Could it direct them towards another company owned by an administration official's relative, a donor, a friend, a politically connected ally?
Where's the bill, where in this bill is the prohibition to do such? Where is the disclosure requirement telling us who it is who's getting these contracts, getting put on this website and profiting? Where's the safeguard preventing politically connected people from making money because the federal government sent customers their way? If Congress is going to create a government website directing mothers towards private resources, I think those questions should be answered before we move on this bill. I'm concerned that this bill, if only in appearance, looks like an issuance of a free pass to corruption for unethical people.
Now I believe Ms. Fischbach is pure in her intent to provide a website that addresses the issues that she cares passionately about. But I think there's a hole in this bill big enough to drive a two-trailer truck through filled with products that are owned and sold by politically connected people, and I think this is an issue, something that we should take a real close look at in this committee. So thank you, and I yield back.
Ron Estes
Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Moore for five minutes to strike the last word.
Gwen Moore
Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. I too am very, very concerned about this bill. This bill was dropped last night. So when I first saw the title, I got very excited by it as a mother, as a grandmother, as a great-grandmother. Why would I not want to be associated with a bill whose title is to amend section 511 of the Social Security Act to provide a resource directory and more opportunities for mothers to succeed?
So, I mean, if mothers are going to succeed, I think about educational opportunities, I think about providing childcare for them, I think about them being able directed toward healthcare assistance. I had a child whose first asthma attack occurred four days after she was born.
So I needed to know where to take her to a doctor. This website, I went to moms.gov. It doesn't say one word about federal resources that are available to women. And I agree with Mr. Thompson. It waxes on about resources to private entities like these pregnancy centers, like the National Safe Haven Alliance where you can relinquish your baby to this agency, and I guess with the prospect that they can put it up for adoption.
It by no means, this bill, qualifies as a clearinghouse. It doesn't tell women how to access WIC, the program Women, Infants, and Children that provides nursing mothers with food and with toddlers with healthy foods. And I guess not, because we did cut $200 million out of WIC. So I guess that's a pretty good reason not to include that public benefit in the clearinghouse. Oh, it doesn't tell you anything about Healthy Start, which is a really program, a great program for women who want to succeed.
I guess it doesn't do that because the president wanted to zero out Healthy Start, and so far we've been able to stop that. Toddlers, we talked a lot today about food as medicine. Where do we have toddlers where they cut $141 million out of the fruit and vegetables provisions for babies? And so none of these, SNAP, we cut $186 billion out of SNAP. What if one of these poor mothers needs something to eat beyond whatever SNAP they're going to get at the pregnancy center while they're being told that they should not seek any other sort of solution?
Sometimes, in order for a mom to succeed, she needs some birth control so she doesn't have her third child in a three-year period. Sometimes, in order to succeed, she needs educational opportunities. But this bill does not provide any of that. All it provides is, when you go to this website, the conscience overview, the federal conscience protection, to guilt-trip women who might think about anything other than giving birth. All it does is points us to Trump accounts, Trump RX, and private pregnancy centers.
Dietary guidelines, we talked a lot about that. You go to this website, moms.org, wow, they give dietary guidelines for pregnant women. That's great, they just don't give you any food, you know, they cut SNAP. I guess it's really interesting to know when you go to this website, which I went to today, that if you're pregnant and you have West Nile disease, that you will not pass that on to your fetus. What a relief to know that.
Of course, you can't get the ACA, it doesn't direct you to public resources like Medicaid or the ACA. It just, it just reassures you that you can't pass West Nile virus on to your fetus. This is a sham bill. It is not, it is not worthy of being called a clearinghouse. There's nothing clear about it.
It doesn't steer you toward all of the resources that a mom might need. It just steers you to private non-abortion services. And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence, my time has expired.
Ms. Chu is recognized.
Judy Chu
I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. My Republicans colleagues call this the Empowering Moms Act, but there's nothing empowering about withholding legitimate healthcare information from women. In some cases, it is downright dangerous because of the misleading information. This bill would permanently establish moms.gov as a federal resource directory for pregnant women and new mothers, but Republicans have rigged that directory from the start.
This bill would establish in law that certain health providers that also provide abortions cannot appear on the website, and that prohibition would extend to any of the provider's affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics. Meanwhile, this bill specifically makes room for resources promoting so-called abortion pill reversal, alternatives to abortion, information about abortion risks, and information about child development from the moment of conception. Let's call this what it is. It's not a neutral resource directory. It's an attempt to use the federal government, your taxpayer dollars, to decide what reproductive health information women can and can't see and which organizations they can turn to for help.
And I want my colleagues to understand what that could actually mean for a pregnant woman. Imagine you just found out that you are pregnant. Maybe you are scared. Maybe you have a medical question. Maybe you simply need someone you can trust.
So you do exactly what this bill tells you to do. You go to moms.gov, you type in your zip code, and the US government gives you a list of places where you supposedly can get help. You pick one, you walk through the door, and it looks like a doctor's office. There are people in scrubs and white coats. None of them with a medical degree or health degree.
There is an ultrasound machine. They offer you a pregnancy test. You actually think you're in a medical clinic. But you are not. You may have walked into a crisis pregnancy center whose mission is not to provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare, but to stop women from having abortions.
These centers have been accused of giving women false or misleading information about abortion and contraception. They have been falsely told that abortion causes infertility or other serious health consequences. In some cases, people without appropriate medical credentials have performed ultrasounds and failed to identify serious medical conditions. And many of these centers are not subject to the same medical privacy requirements patients associate with a doctor's office. Now that's bad enough.
But this bill would add something enormously powerful to that deception: the credibility of the US government. Because that woman did not find this place from a random flyer. She did not click on some anonymous advertisement. The federal government actually sent her there. And at that very same time, Republicans want the government to keep certain reproductive health providers that provide comprehensive medical care off the website entirely because they also provide abortion care or even affiliated with a hospital that provides abortion care.
And that tells you everything you need to know about this bill. It's not about helping women find healthcare. It's about controlling what healthcare women are allowed to find. Republicans are taking a government website that women should be able to trust and turn it into a tool for their anti-abortion agenda. And they are doing it at one of the most vulnerable moments in a woman's life.
A woman who's pregnant and looking for help should not have to investigate whether the so-called clinic the federal government sent her to is actually a medical clinic. She should not have to wonder whether the person in a white coat is actually a medical professional. She should not have to wonder whether the information she is receiving is medically accurate. And she certainly should not have to discover that legitimate reproductive health providers were deliberately hidden from her because politicians in Washington disapprove of the care that they provide. This is not empowering women, it is total manipulation.
Women deserve accurate information. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, I yield back.
So, you want to get recognized, Mr. Kelly?
Yeah, thank you.
Strike the last word, you are recognized.
Mike Kelly
Yeah, you know, I appreciate that. The previous administration was really good at providing information to expectant mothers on how to eliminate the possibility of them actually giving a live birth. So we get in these things, Michelle, thank you for doing this. I never realized what a horrible piece of legislation this was of yours. The abortion finder.
The abortion finder, this is really quality information that expectant mothers needed to know, put out under the Biden administration. And I think these are things that are really needed. And in a nation that was facing a population crisis because we were no longer producing children, we decided to open our borders and let anybody in the world come in because we really needed people because we weren't producing enough of our own people. And I'm, again, I'm shocked at some of this stuff. You sit here and you listen, you say, okay, fine, you know, this is part of the game where you're trying to get somebody to cast a vote on some legislative idea that the unborn don't deserve a chance at life because it's not convenient at that time for somebody.
This is an absurd position that we've taken. But so the previous administration puts out, this is great, I wish my wife had known this while we were expecting any one of our five children, or that my children, who have for some reason gone off the end of the plank here, they've actually thought that having kids was great. So we have ten grandchildren, which we celebrate their birthdays all the time, their first communion, their graduations. I've got pictures hanging over my house that some people say, is that kitty art? I said, yes, that's our kids.
And I feel sorry for people who never see any of that art, or forget what they're doing here on earth.
I've often wondered when we have these discussions about this horrible idea that a pregnancy should not be allowed to result in the birth of a child. I've often wondered if my colleagues on the other side that have that faith, that belief, that at the end of these things today, please call your mother and thank her for having you so that you could come here and castigate everybody else who actually believes that your being here was actually the result of your mother deciding to give birth. That's a shocking realistic thing that's happening in the country today. So I'll tell you what, first of all, Michelle Fischbach, I appreciate what you're trying to do. I do notice that for those of us that watch athletic events, especially after the Super Bowl, they always show the benches and the guys that are winning are always yelling, "Hi, Mom! Hi, Mom!" because their mother actually gave birth and they got a chance to play in the Super Bowl.
But that's okay. That's okay. So we're finishing up a long day and I was hoping we'd actually stay on stuff that actually made sense to our nation. There's nothing that we celebrate more than the birth of a child. As a grandparent, you really relish those times when your children continue this tradition of having children.
I don't know how we got to the point we're at today, but Ms. Fischbach, thank you for doing this. I don't really see the danger of going through all these things and actually expecting people to give birth and to actually enjoy the idea that we have children and we have a future because we have children. Or you could just say we're not producing enough children, so what we need to do is tear down the walls, let everybody come into the nation because we're not producing enough of our own people. This has been an absurd kind of conversation and I hope you all when you go off on your own say, "I can't believe this Kelly said, what does he know about this? He should never say anything." But I'll tell you what, my wife's one of nine, I'm one of five, my uncle Jerry and Aunt Joanne had 13, and I often wondered after we had our first child how in the world did they do it?
But I will tell you one thing: every one of those children, every one of those children had a chance at life. And it wasn't because of anything else than the fact that the belief, the strong belief that the reproduction of human beings is absolutely important. I have never in my life ever expected to sit in the greatest nation in the world, in its government, and sit here talking about the biggest problem we have is we should not allow, we should help these people hold down the population because there's other people around the world that could come here and we'll let them in. Listen, first of all, Chairman, thank you for a very good day, a day of listening and a day of learning. The one thing is I wish we had finished up on a high note as opposed to a low note.
But for all of you, when you go home tonight, please call Mom, say, "You know what? Thanks for following through on this because I wouldn't have had an opportunity today to discuss this in a negative way." So God bless you all, safe home. I hope to see you back here soon. Please enjoy what life we have left and let's just make sure we make the most of it every day. Chairman, thanks so much, appreciate it.
Gwen Moore
Thank you so much, Mr. Larson. And let me just say to Mr. Kelly, you know, I have often wanted in my service to my communities when I was in the state legislature and even now to be able to sit down when we're not in front of lots of people and talk to those folks like you, Mr. Kelly, like Mr. Smith of New Jersey, like Ms. Fischbach, very passionate about their pro-life position.
I want you to know I'm the mother of three, the grandmother of three, I'm a great grandmother of three. So I am not a person who doesn't want to see people born in this world, but I tell you, when I heard that one of my children, one of my grandchildren, or when I heard my daughter was pregnant in one of her pregnancies, I was out at dinner and I fell out and I fainted. And the reason I fainted is because I knew the cost that it was going to be and the sacrifices it was going to be and I knew the challenges that my daughter was going to get getting the public to support her and that baby after she emerged from the womb. It is so ironic that we hear these passionate speeches about how we need more children and how children are precious. You know, and 40% of the kids are born on Medicaid and they're immediately labeled as takers, as parasites when they come in the world.
Healthy Start, President tried to zero that out. You cut fruits and vegetables from toddlers, not from grown folks. Kids with brain development needs, they can't have food from the public trough, they can't have healthcare from the public trough. And sometimes a woman who is seeking an abortion is doing it because she's realistic about the level of concern and care she's going to get. We talk an awful lot about TANF, you know, and how these women who need support are just leeches on the system.
It's so how dare you deny a woman her own ability to determine her reproductive healthcare needs. What if she needs birth control because she has diabetes and her doctor is saying you shouldn't do this again. I've watched, I've looked at beautiful women laying in their casket who were pro-life and didn't want to not have that 13th child because they didn't believe in abortion and their doctor said you need, your heart will not, you will not be able to go through this pregnancy. And so the thing of it is is that all of this, you know, all of this high and mighty talk about the value of life, it doesn't show up Republicans when it's time to actually, I'm going to call you guys out, you're going to be here next term Mr. Kelly, I'm going to call you out every single time you vote against SNAP or WIC or Healthy Start or Head Start or any of these things that helps or childcare or pre-K education for kids, all of the stuff that kids need. Or what kills me are Republicans who vote against school lunch and school breakfast and they wax on about how it's a parent's responsibility to feed their kids.
But they, you know, it's duplicative of services if we give them school lunch and SNAP.
So this hypocrisy, Mr. Kelly, that I can't stand. We could eliminate the desire for women to have an abortion if we would just give them some slack. You know, and I think marriage is very good and, you know, a man like you, Mr. Kelly, supporting your wife and your five kids. But the happily ever after isn't always there. Sometimes men run off with their secretaries and leave their wives and have to take care of the kids themselves.
These are realities. This is not pie-in-the-sky hoping about what motherhood should be like. I just want to thank you all for hearing me out because I just could not contain myself. I yield back.
Jason Smith
Additional members wish to strike the last word? Seen none, we will move to amendment. Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Jason Smith
Mr. Chairman, I haven't called on anyone and I will call on Mr. Davis.
Speaker 201
A point of order has been reserved. Would the gentleman suspend while the amendment is distributed? Mr. Davis, you can proceed.
Danny Davis
You know, we've had a very interesting discussion. But the good book teaches us to care for all, everybody, and especially the least of these. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not just the ones who are Christian, not just the ones who are married, not just the ones who are straight. And so, Mr. Chairman, I get deeply concerned when I hear that the federal government, specifically the Trump administration, is imposing restrictions on federal programs based on whether one is married or speaks English or is LGBTQ.
These exclusions go against the law and against Judeo-Christian teachings. Americans look to the federal government for help and they should know that help will be on the way, that they will be directed to programs that will not turn them away because of the color of their skin, their marital status, who they love, or another fundamental element of who they are. Further, Americans look to the federal government with the presumption of truthfulness and complete information. If a pregnant person goes to a federal website to find local reproductive care resources, she likely believes that the website is sharing comprehensive information and not intentionally excluding quality healthcare providers because Trump officials don't agree with them. My amendment would help moms seeking resources on moms.gov in two key ways.
First, it would ensure that the entities listed or linked on the website do not exclude service to an individual based on race, ethnicity, national origin, language, disability, sexual orientation, gender, religion, or marital status.
This is what we should expect of a federal resource. Congress should not encourage a federal website to direct constituents to programs that will sham them as unworthy of help. Secondly, my amendment would help moms by making sure the website accurately reflects local health options by including providers primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care. As drafted, the bill might exclude the only provider of women's health care in some communities and especially in tribal nations. Our committee must not mislead women seeking reproductive health care resources into thinking that their local comprehensive community providers do not exist or are not legitimate because those providers were intentionally excluded from a federal resource website.
We should let women choose their health care providers. Americans should be able to trust that the federal government will connect them with resources that will not discriminate against them and that will accurately exclude and include their local health care provider. My amendment provides these protections for those using moms.gov and I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Empowering Moms Act is aimed at helping expecting and new mothers. And I don't think this is a serious amendment. This is what it is about. We're talking about a website.
We are trying to help them succeed. We are trying to help them to understand that there is they they have support, particularly if they are are looking for searching the web. But let's remember this is a website. This is not, you know, a a place where they are being directed to do something specific. They are seeking information and this is their opportunity with the with moms.gov.
But this bill creates a central clearinghouse of resources, including material support such as formula and diapers and mental health services and health services. It also prioritizes the life of the unborn child and ensures mother mothers can confidently raise their child. And so I would urge a no vote on this amendment. I don't think it's a serious amendment and it is not certainly not intended to improve this legislation or the website. Thank you.
I yield back.
Who was the last one?
Proceed.
Gwen Moore
Well, I just want to thank Ms. Fischbach for her comments and her explanation. I support this amendment because I think that that while her while the bill is designed to while the title of the bill says that they want to help moms succeed, there's so much data missing from it.
And I think that by excluding a Planned Parenthood, you are also excluding some other services that women get at Planned Parenthood, which, you know, number one, they're licensed health professionals at Planned Parenthood. They also refer women to other resources. So the fact that they're excluded is does not fit in, and I will conclude my remarks, it does not fit in with the stated goal of helping moms succeed. I yield back.
Jason Smith
Further discussion on the amendment? All right, seeing none, we will the question is on the green amendment offered by Mr. Davis. Clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. Carey.
Mr. Miller, no. Mr. Bean.
Speaker 60
No. Mr. Arrington.
Mr. Hern. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Ms. Van Duyne. Ms. Malliotakis. Mr. Neal.
Ms. Sewell. Ms. DelBene.
Speaker 60
Ms. DelBene, yes. Mr. Boyle. Mr. Beyer. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford.
Ms. Plaskett. Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith, no.
Clerk will report the vote.
Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 12 and the nays are 22.
Jason Smith
There being 12 ayes and 22 nays, the amendment is not adopted. Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 178
A point of order reserved. Would the gentlelady suspend while the amendment is distributed? Proceed.
Judy Chu
My amendment, which is co-sponsored by my colleague Representative DelBene, would prohibit moms.gov from promoting organizations that have been found by a state medical board to have provided misleading or deceptive medical information or to have unnecessarily put the health of a woman at risk. Moms.gov purports to be a resource to support the health and well-being of women and families. In reality, this website is yet another Republican attempt to push their extreme anti-abortion agenda at the expense of women's health and safety. What this website does and what the bill before us today seeks to codify is to direct women to anti-abortion centers or so-called crisis pregnancy centers, many of which are not real medical providers. Democrats have long raised concerns about this kind of deceptive practice that many of these centers engage in to mislead patients seeking care.
The scale of the deception is staggering. A major study of more than 600 anti-abortion centers across nine states found that nearly two-thirds promoted patently false or biased medical claims and fewer than half reported having a licensed medical professional on staff. In Iowa, an OB-GYN has seen patients who visited these centers and were told that using contraceptives was the same as having an abortion. She's seen patients who've had miscarriages or had to endure dangerous ectopic pregnancies because they were misdiagnosed by these anti-abortion centers. In Dallas, a woman had to have emergency surgery just three days after an unqualified staff member at one of these centers conducted an ultrasound and failed to detect an ectopic pregnancy.
She was sent home from the center believing her pregnancy was healthy, when in reality it was life-threatening. In Chicago, a woman seeking an abortion was deliberately misled by a fake clinic, subjected to graphic videos, and was told falsely that having an abortion would make her infertile. After giving birth, she lost her job and health coverage, and the so-called clinic never offered real medical care or follow-up support. In Georgia, a woman got an ultrasound from a pregnancy center and was told that her baby's kidneys were filled with water and that she needed to see a primary care doctor. That diagnosis was incorrect, but the stress of that misdiagnosis severely impacted the mother.
She said that the irony in all this is that the threat could have caused me to lose a perfectly healthy pregnancy. And in my home state of California, the Attorney General previously filed suit against an anti-abortion organization operating multiple of these centers for falsely advertising that they offer so-called abortion reversal. That claim is medically false and has been widely condemned by the medical community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Not only that, the rigorous study designed to test this so-called procedure was halted early because multiple women experienced severe hemorrhaging and had to be rushed to the hospital. And yet Republicans' underlying bill before us actually lists abortion pill reversal as a relevant resource that should be included on moms.gov.
It's outrageous. If my Republican colleagues truly want to support parents and families, Democrats would welcome their support for establishing paid family and medical leave, making childcare affordable for working families, or reversing the $1 trillion cut to Medicaid, our nation's largest insurer of children and births in this country. But since my Republican colleagues are insistent on ignoring these crises and moving forward anyway on a bill directing women to non-medical anti-abortion facilities, then the absolute minimum we owe America's women is a guarantee that these facilities won't lie to them or endanger their very lives. My amendment is simple and common sense. If an organization has been caught deceiving patients and putting their health at risk, it should not be promoted by a government website or pushed onto women at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives.
I urge support for my amendment and I yield back.
Ms. Fischbach.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And and here it is again. This this amendment is not about helping mothers. It is not about helping babies. It is about going after crisis pregnancy centers, pregnancy care centers, which it makes me sad when I hear the depiction of of those pregnancy care centers because I've been into, physically been to many, many, many of the crisis the pregnancy care centers.
And that is not that is not an accurate depiction of what happens when a a woman walks into one of those one of those centers and is surrounded by love and so just this is, like I said, this this is not a serious amendment that's about helping or making the making improvements. This is about attacking anyone who is pro-life and attacking any center that might actually encourage a woman to carry a child to term. And so I I oppose this amendment and and I would urge everyone to vote no.
Linda Sánchez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to respond to the last comments that were made. How is making sure that pregnancy centers provide accurate medical information not helping women and children? That's nonsensical. That makes absolutely zero sense.
And I applaud you for having visited and physically been inside a pregnancy center, but unless you've been in every single one in every single state in this country and can verify that all of the information that they are providing is accurate, you can't just blanketly state that they don't that they're infallible. People make mistakes. They make medical mistakes. And when people do that and it puts the health of a child or a mother at risk, you should want the them to be accountable for that. I I I struggle to see how wanting transparency and accountability is, quote, going after pro-life people.
That makes zero sense. It's non-sequitur. We are simply trying to say, okay, if these centers are going to operate, let's make sure that they're operating honestly and that they're giving women accurate information and that they're not putting women or children's lives at risk. Yes, they may do really great work, but they also can be doing things that are either intentionally wrong or recklessly wrong or unintentionally wrong, but wrong nonetheless. I I just don't understand this blind faith that these pregnancy care centers do no wrong.
We have data. We have documented incidents. And you can turn your head and look the other way and pretend like mistakes don't happen, but they do because we have the data to prove it. We have the stories by women themselves who have been there and were told wrong information. That it happens.
So why not allow the amendment that would create the transparency and the mechanism by which we could hold people accountable if they're doing things that harm women and children? That's not anti-pro-life. That's the most pro-life thing we could be doing. I just don't understand this blind insistence that there's nothing to see here and there's nothing wrong there. That's wrong.
That's false. Open your eyes. Open your mind. Support an amendment that would give transparency, that would force accountability for harm that can be done to women and children. And with that, I will yield back.
Jason Smith
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Seen none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Ms. Chu. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson.
Ms. DelBene, yes. Ms. Chu.
Ms. Chu, yes. Ms. Moore.
Speaker 48
Mr. Suozzi, yes. Mr. Hern. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Neal. Ms. Sewell.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Boyle. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford. Ms. Plaskett.
Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith, no.
Are there additional amendments?
I have an amendment.
Ms. Moore has an amendment.
Speaker 178
There has been a point of order raised. Would the gentlelady suspend while the amendment is distributed? You can proceed, Ms. Moore.
Gwen Moore
Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. I just want to state for the record that I am opposed to having a government website that directs people to private resources, and that may include directing them to Planned Parenthood, which I support. But these private pregnancy centers and the what is this organization where you can give your baby up, the National Safe Haven Alliance, you can relinquish your baby. I think that government websites ought to have government information.
You know, I know that all of us are subject to these provisions with our official websites. We aren't allowed to direct people to private entities. I can't direct people to Planned Parenthood from my government website. And so that we ought to limit this. I think we ought to add to this website, mom.gov, relevant public information about the well-being of pregnant women and women parenting young children, including maternal and infant mortality and morbidity data from the National Vital Statistics System at the Centers for Disease Control, health status for women.
This might inform people a lot more about whether or not they want to stay pregnant. As a black woman who has had a crisis pregnancy or two, I can tell you that I'm part of that 80% of maternal mortality deaths in the United States are preventable. And here we are, one of the wealthiest countries in the OECD, and we have the highest maternal mortality rate. And it's very prevalent among black American women and Native American women, whose maternal mortality is significantly higher. Black women in my state are five times more likely to die from maternal mortality.
In 2024, the most recent year for which the Wisconsin Department of Health Services has published data, we've had an infant mortality rate of 12 and a half deaths for every thousand live births among black babies. And for white babies, this was only 4.8%. Maybe women need to know more about health status and the outcomes before they make a decision about becoming pregnant or continuing a pregnancy. Women need to know information on licensed healthcare and regulated childcare slots. You know, when I was pregnant, what did I need?
I needed childcare. I needed food. I needed housing. I needed an education and training. I needed to know where to take my daughter to the doctor when she had her first severe asthma attack at age four days old.
I did not need to go somewhere where they gave me diapers and formula for a few months and knitted me some booties for my baby. This is not what I needed.
I needed someone to care about my kids. And so this amendment, this amendment here would populate moms.org with information that women really need regarding the vitality of their decision-making around producing more life. And it is very, they need objective counseling. They don't need someone to steer them toward an organization that only wants to prevent them from having an abortion. They need balanced information.
And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back and ask this body to strongly consider my amendment.
Beth Van Duyne
I appreciate all this great conversation and these amazing amendments that are being added to a website that is talking about providing resources for women. This is all this is. We're not providing, you know, an emergency room visit. We don't have clinics that we have to visit. This is literally just providing a website.
It's worth a Google. This is just additional resources. And for the argument that government sites don't ever and we should never publish private organizations, so health information lists dozens of groups such as the Alzheimer's Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Association, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. We have disaster preparedness. I for one during the first Trump administration worked for HUD.
And during my time there, we actually had Hurricane Harvey that happened in Texas. And we were very, very happy to work with FEMA and HUD to direct people to places like American Red Cross. We had military family services that they could go to. We had the Better Business Bureau. We had blood donation places, first aid training, family emergency plans.
We do this all the time. And HUD also has other agencies like United Way that they send people to. Grants and nonprofits, we do this all the time. Other partnerships with SBA, US Chamber of Commerce, Girl Scouts. The idea that we can't do it because it's a private resource is absurd.
They do it all the time. What they don't like is the fact that it is not meeting their agenda. That what we're talking about doing is actually providing services, healthcare, things that pregnant women need. And while Ms. Moore, as a mom, I appreciate it, but as a mom, I really appreciated diapers. That was a need that babies have, that moms have, that are quite expensive.
And having that as a need in my area and having it be a resource that if you cannot afford, I think there are a lot of things including clothes and care and having somebody that actually cares for you that will talk to you and counsel you is an important thing. Are we going to be an end-all be-all? Absolutely not. This is a resource page. This is as deep as this gets.
This is a resource page to women who find themselves in need. And you've got organizations who are actually putting money and care and items together and training. This is what this is about. And you know, I appreciate the amendments, but this is not the kind of discussion that we need to explode this into for a website for women in need. Thank you, and I yield back.
Jason Smith
Further discussion on the amendment? Seen none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by Ms. Moore. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Buchanan.
Speaker 43
Mr. LaHood. Mr. LaHood, no. Mr. Arrington. Mr. Arrington, no. Mr. Estes.
Mr. Estes, no. Mr. Smucker. Mr. Smucker, no. Mr. Hern. Mr. Hern, no.
Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, no. Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy, no. Mr. Kustoff.
Mr. Kustoff, no. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Steube. Mr. Steube, no. Ms. Tenney.
Ms. Tenney, no. Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, no.
Ms. Van Duyne. Ms. Van Duyne, no. Mr. Feenstra. Mr. Feenstra, no. Ms. Malliotakis.
Ms. Malliotakis, no. Mr. Carey. Mr. Carey, no. Mr. Yakym. Mr. Yakym, no.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Bean. Mr. Bean, no. Mr. Moran. Mr. Neal.
Mr. Doggett. Mr. Doggett, yes. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson, yes. Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson, yes. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, yes. Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Sanchez, yes.
Ms. Sewell. Ms. DelBene. Ms. DelBene, yes. Ms. Chu. Ms. Chu, yes.
Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore, yes. Mr. Boyle. Mr. Beyer. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans, yes. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider, yes. Mr. Panetta. Mr. Panetta, yes.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford. Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Suozzi. Mr. Suozzi, yes.
Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, no. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Miller. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Neal. Ms. Sewell. Mr. Boyle. Mr. Beyer. Mr. Gomez.
Mr. Horsford. Ms. Plaskett. Chairman Smith. Chairman Smith, no.
Jason Smith
There being 12 ayes and 23 nays, the amendment is not agreed to. Are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seen none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I will now recognize Mr. Buchanan for the purpose of offering a motion.
Vern Buchanan
Mr. Chairman, I move the committee favorably report H.R. 10356 as amended to the House of Representatives.
Jason Smith
The question is on the motion to favorably report H.R. 10356 as amended to the House of Representatives. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 43
Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Buchanan, yes. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Smith of Nebraska, yes.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, yes. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. LaHood. Mr. LaHood, yes.
Mr. Arrington. Mr. Arrington, yes. Mr. Estes. Mr. Estes, yes. Mr. Smucker.
Mr. Smucker, yes. Mr. Hern. Mr. Hern, yes. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller, yes.
Dr. Murphy. Dr. Murphy, yes. Mr. Kustoff. Mr. Kustoff, yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Fitzpatrick, yes. Mr. Steube. Mr. Steube, yes. Ms. Tenney. Ms. Tenney, yes.
Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, yes. Mr. Moore. Ms. Van Duyne. Ms. Van Duyne, yes.
Mr. Feenstra. Mr. Feenstra, yes. Ms. Malliotakis. Ms. Malliotakis, yes. Mr. Carey.
Mr. Carey, yes. Mr. Yakym. Mr. Yakym, yes. Mr. Miller. Mr. Bean.
Mr. Bean, yes. Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran, yes. Mr. Neal. Mr. Doggett.
Mr. Doggett, no. Mr. Thompson.
Jason Smith
Have you went through the entire let let's do it the normal way like we've not even went through it one time, so start saying the names, Mr. Lee.
Speaker 43
Mr. Larson. Mr. Larson, no. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, no. Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez, no. Ms. Sewell. Ms. DelBene. Ms. DelBene, no. Ms. Chu.
Ms. Chu, no. Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore, no. Mr. Boyle. Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer, no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans, no. Mr. Schneider. Mr. Schneider, no.
Mr. Panetta. Mr. Panetta, no. Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford. Ms. Plaskett.
Mr. Suozzi. Mr. Suozzi, no. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert, yes. Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore, yes. Mr. Miller. Mr. Neal. Ms. Sewell. Mr. Boyle.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Horsford. Ms. Plaskett. Chairman Smith.
Clerk will report the vote.
Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 25 and the noes are 13.
Jason Smith
There being 25 ayes and 13 noes, the motion is agreed to and H.R. 10356 as amended is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, I ask that staff be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to H.R. 10356 and that members have up to two additional days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional additional dissenting or minority views. There being no further business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned.