H.R. 1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act

2025-05-21

Loading video...

Summary

The Rules Committee convened to consider H.R. 1, "the One Big Beautiful Act," a reconciliation bill aimed at significant tax and spending reforms. The meeting was contentious from the outset, marked by debate over its unusual 1 a.m. start time, with Republicans asserting historical precedent and Democrats alleging an attempt to rush an unpopular bill through without public scrutiny [ 00:25:37 ]

. The discussion revolved around the bill's projected impact on the national debt, healthcare, food assistance, federal agencies, and environmental policy, with starkly opposing views on its benefits and consequences [ 00:30:51 ] .

Themes

Meeting Process and Transparency

Republicans, led by Chairwoman Foxx, defended the 1 a.m. start by citing past instances of late-night hearings by Democrats, including one in 2007 and another in 2022 [ 00:26:17-00:26:43 ]

. They argued that such scheduling is sometimes necessary and that Democrats themselves prolong committee meetings [ 00:27:40 ] . Conversely, Democrats vehemently criticized the timing, accusing Republicans of intentionally hiding the bill's contents from the public and calling the process "unprecedented" and "nefarious" [ 00:37:24 ] . Ranking Member McGovern questioned why, if Republicans were proud of the bill, they would debate it in the "dead of night" . Democrats also expressed frustration over the lack of a final CBO score for the bill's latest version and the expectation of a manager's amendment, which they had not seen .

Impact on the Economy and Deficit

The bill's economic effects were a central point of contention. Republicans characterized it as an opportunity to implement the "largest tax cuts, security investment, federal energy asset deployment, and spending reduction in the history" . They claimed it would prevent a 22% tax hike, boost economic growth, and lead to record wage increases . Chairwoman Foxx cited reports suggesting the 2017 tax cuts benefited most Americans, not just the wealthy . Democrats, however, labeled the bill a "tax scam" and a "bonanza for billionaires," asserting it would increase the national debt by trillions of dollars and disproportionately benefit the rich . They cited CBO analysis and the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, which indicated the bill would significantly increase the deficit and make the poor even poorer while the rich get richer . Concerns were raised about Moody's downgrade of the U.S. credit rating due to projected deficit increases .

Impact on Healthcare (Medicaid, Medicare, ACA)

Democrats alleged the bill would enact the "biggest cuts to Medicaid in American history," leading to 14 million Americans losing health coverage . They also highlighted a projected $500 billion cut to Medicare through sequestration triggered by Pay-As-You-Go rules . This, they argued, would cause hospitals and nursing homes to close, emergency rooms to become overcrowded, and people to die . Republicans countered that their goal was to strengthen and sustain Medicaid for the most vulnerable, not to cut it, but to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and prioritize Americans over illegal immigrants . They emphasized that work requirements would only apply to able-bodied adults without dependents, not pregnant women, children, or those with disabilities . Democrats, however, stated that these work requirements often lead to coverage losses due to paperwork, not unwillingness to work [ 08:41:00 ]

Impact on Food Assistance (SNAP, WIC)

The bill's proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were a major point of contention. Democrats asserted it would be the "biggest cut to food assistance in American history," with millions of Americans, including children, seniors, and veterans, losing benefits . Ranking Member Craig noted that the bill would change the definition of a dependent, potentially forcing parents of children as young as seven to meet work requirements . Republicans, led by Chairman Thompson of the Agriculture Committee, defended the SNAP reforms as necessary to restore integrity, reduce erroneous payments, and ensure accountability . They also introduced a 5% state cost-sharing requirement, which Democrats warned would lead to states cutting benefits due to inability to meet costs .

Impact on Federal Workforce and Services

The bill proposes changes to federal employee benefits, which Democrats argue would undermine the federal workforce and reduce take-home pay . Specific concerns included the elimination of the FERS annuity supplement, retroactive changes to annuity formulas, and the introduction of at-will employment for new hires . Chairman Comer stated that federal employee benefits are significantly higher than in the private sector and that the changes protect current retirees while offering future employees a choice [ 01:05:48 ]

. Democrats also criticized alleged cuts to federal agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the elimination of DOJ grants for local police, which they claimed would compromise consumer protection and public safety . Republicans argued the CFPB could perform its duties with reduced funding and that certain law enforcement groups like air traffic controllers would be exempt from benefit changes [ 01:23:52 ] .

Natural Resources and Environmental Policies

Democrats condemned the bill as the "most extreme anti-environment bill in American history," alleging it would "auction off millions of acres of pristine public lands" for offshore drilling and coal leasing . They criticized provisions for a "pay-to-play permitting process" that allows developers to bypass environmental reviews and legal challenges, even for dangerous projects . Republicans, led by Chairman Westerman, emphasized "energy dominance," arguing the bill would generate billions in revenue by increasing domestic energy production and streamlining environmental reviews . Concerns were also raised about the bill's impact on tribal nations' judicial rights concerning sacred lands [ 11:53:10 ]

Homeland Security and Immigration

Republicans asserted the bill would correct failures of the previous administration by providing over $46 billion for a border barrier system, $5 billion for checkpoints, and $7 billion to increase Border Patrol agents . Chairman Green claimed that President Trump's approach had already led to a drastic reduction in border encounters . Democrats vehemently opposed these measures, with Ranking Member Thompson calling the Homeland Security title a "slush fund" and criticizing the $46.5 billion for a "failed border wall" . They raised concerns about increased ICE funding being used to "decimate DHS" and undermine due process, citing instances of allegedly unlawful deportations and attacks on free speech rights .

Education and Student Loans

The bill includes the "Student success and taxpayer savings plan," which Republicans claim saves $350 billion by reforming loan repayment, streamlining student loan options, and holding colleges accountable . They stated it protects and strengthens Pell Grants and expands their use for short-term credentials . Democrats, particularly Ranking Member Scott, argued the bill would make college more expensive, reduce Pell Grants for 4 million students, and increase student loan payments . They also criticized provisions for a "first nationwide federal voucher program," which they stated would divert taxpayer money from public to private schools .

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was highly contentious, partisan, and often emotional, especially during Democratic testimonies [ 00:37:22 ]

. Democrats expressed outrage and deep moral objections to the bill's proposals, using terms like "scam," "monstrosity," "cruel," "immoral," and "betrayal" . They frequently accused Republicans of "hiding" the bill's impact and acting like "cowards" . Republicans, while defending their legislation as necessary for fiscal responsibility and economic growth, sometimes responded defensively and dismissed Democratic arguments as "misleading rhetoric" or "identity politics" [ 00:29:30 ] . The initial debate over the 1 a.m. start time set an adversarial stage, with both sides attributing motives to the other for the unusual scheduling [ 00:25:54 ] .