{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-02-20-pt1-PgS1075-2", "2025-02-20", 119, 1, null, null, "LEGISLATIVE SESSION", "SENATE", "SENATE", "SLEGISLATIVE", "S1075", "S1125", "[{\"name\": \"Lindsey Graham\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Patty Murray\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rand Paul\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jeanne Shaheen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Thom Tillis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mike Crapo\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Angus S. King Jr.\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chuck Grassley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Edward J. Markey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jack Reed\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Maria Cantwell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michael F. Bennet\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bernard Sanders\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jeff Merkley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles E. Schumer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Thune\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard J. Durbin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Amy Klobuchar\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tim Scott\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark R. Warner\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Barrasso\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John W. Hickenlooper\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mike Lee\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Adam B. Schiff\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steve Daines\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dan Sullivan\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ron Wyden\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jon Ossoff\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tammy Baldwin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Roger F. Wicker\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Elissa Slotkin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Boozman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chris Van Hollen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ben Ray Lujan\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tammy Duckworth\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Katie Boyd Britt\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Martin Heinrich\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard Blumenthal\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerry Moran\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Roger Marshall\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Christopher A. Coons\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Elizabeth Warren\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Kennedy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark Kelly\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gary C. Peters\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lisa Blunt Rochester\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"114\", \"type\": \"SCONRES\", \"number\": \"11\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SCONRES\", \"number\": \"7\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SCONRES\", \"number\": \"7\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SCONRES\", \"number\": \"11\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SCONRES\", \"number\": \"13\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. S1075", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2025)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S1075-S1125]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION\n\n                                 ______\n\nSETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT\nFOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 AND SETTING FORTH THE APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS\n                  FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026 THROUGH 2034--\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative\nsession.\n  The Senator from South Carolina.\n\n                         Budget Reconciliation\n\n  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, my colleagues will soon be starting what\nis commonly called a vote-arama. If you have never been in one, it is\nOK. But know it is a chance to have a spirited discussion and debate\nabout policy and about the budget resolution.\n  So what has happened here is that the Budget Committee reported out\nS. Con. Res. 7. That will allow, through the reconciliation process,\nthe spending of money and the reduction of spending based on different\ncommittees.\n  This resolution allows for $175 billion of border and immigration\npolicy enhancements, but it doesn't spend a penny. It allows the\nJudiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee to come up with\nan up-to $175 billion plan to secure our border and do immigration\nreform.\n  And what will happen is that those two committees will work with the\nTrump administration to meet their priorities. There is nothing in this\nresolution directing one dime of spending, and no spending bill can be\nimplemented without Presidential signature. So I want to make sure that\nis clear.\n  There is $150 billion in increased defense spending. Why? Because we\nhave a lot of threats.\n  Since the withdrawal of Afghanistan, radical Islam is on the rise. We\nhave got a hot war with Russia and Ukraine. Israel is facing enemies on\nseven sides. We have provided weapons to allies in Ukraine and Israel.\nWe have run out of 155 howitzer rounds. We have got to reinforce our\nindustrial base. We need more money into our military yesterday to make\nsure that we can deter a war, and, if we get into a war, we win it.\n  So the $150 billion will be allocated by the Armed Services\nCommittee. We don't direct how the $150 billion is spent. We just allow\nthe Armed Services Committee to spend that much, if they choose. They\ndecide what to spend it on.\n  So this idea that there is somehow money in this resolution for\nUkraine or any other specific purpose is not true. All we do is create\na number for the committees to mark up to, and it is up to the\ncommittee as to what is in the $150 billion package.\n  And to all the colleagues here, you eventually get to vote on that\nwork product, and, if you don't like it, you can vote no. And,\neventually, that work product will have to be signed by the\nPresident. So that is the way the process works.\n\n  What we are doing today is jump-starting a process that will allow\nthe Republican Party to meet President Trump's immigration agenda\nthrough the reconciliation process. And the Democrats chose this very\nprocess to pass ObamaCare and the Inflation Reduction Act.\n  We are going to use it to secure our border. We are not going to grow\nthe government just for the sense of growing the government. We are not\ngoing to create a Green New Deal. We are going to create border\nsecurity transformational in nature.\n  Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to embark on a plan to jump-start\nthe most transformational border security bill in the history of the\nUnited States because we need it yesterday. We have had 11 million\npeople come to this country illegally. Fentanyl kills 3,000 Americans\nevery 2 weeks. It comes across that southern border.\n  We are running out of detention space to hold people. Tom Homan, the\nborder czar, came to the Republican Senate last week or 2 weeks ago and\nsaid that ICE is out of money. This resolution jump-starts the process\nto get Tom Homan the money he needs to fulfill the promises we made, to\nbuild more detention beds so you don't have to let people go. Laken\nRiley's murderer was in detention and released because of lack of bed\nspace and wound up killing the young lady. That should never happen\nagain. When you are detained, we should hold you and process you\naccording to law, not release you. We need more detention beds.\n  We need to finish the wall. This $175 billion will be allocated by\nthe committees in question, and it will allow President Trump to finish\nthe wall, secure the border, and deport criminals.\n  ICE is out of money.\n  If you think it is a good idea to go after the criminal gangs that\nhave come here over the years illegally, then you are right.\n  To my Democratic colleagues, you should be working with us, not\nagainst us. Everybody should want to clean up the mess of the last 4\nyears. Everybody should want to go after criminal gangs. Everybody\nshould want to secure the border because it is a national security\nnightmare. And nobody should want the dilemma of a nation having to let\nsomebody go who could potentially be dangerous because you have no\nplace to put them.\n  This $175 billion will allow for the most transformational border\nsecurity bill in the history of the country at a time of great need.\n  The $150 billion will be allocated by the Armed Services Committee.\nThey will decide what to spend it on. There is a lot of modernization\nwe need of our nuclear triad fleet. We need more weapons. Our stockpile\nis low. There are a bunch of things we can spend $150 billion, but we\nwill let the Armed Services Committee decide those priorities.\n  When it comes to border security--the $175 billion plan--the\ncommittees of jurisdiction will allocate that money, not this\nresolution. But without this resolution, we can't move forward.\n  Why is this resolution important? Without this bill passing, S. Con.\nRes. 7, there is no hope getting money for the border the way it needs\nto be done. Without this resolution passing tonight or early tomorrow,\nwe are not\n\n[[Page S1076]]\n\ngoing to get any money for the military without having to negotiate\nnonmilitary spending increases.\n  We don't have a lack-of-spending problem in our country; we have\nspent way too much on things that don't matter enough. Part of this\nprocess will be committees finding offsets, reducing spending.\n  So we are telling the Armed Services Committee: Spend $150 billion\nthe way you see fit. We are telling two committees to spend $175\nbillion to secure our border. We are telling seven other committees:\nFind savings inside your committee to offset the spending we are\ncreating in this bill.\n  I think they can do that. I think what DOGE is doing is good. This is\na form of that.\n  Every committee that has been instructed to save at least $1 billion\nwill be able finally to go into the committee itself, see what they\nspend on, and reduce spending because we are directing them to.\n  My hope is that the $342 billion we are going to spend to secure our\nborder, help the military, and enhance the Coast Guard will be offset\nwith $342 billion of cuts in other parts of the government. We can do\nit, but this resolution has to pass or we won't do it.\n  I am highly confident that the Republican chairmen of the committees\nin question will deliver. I am highly confident that we can find\nsavings in the government to offset the spending we are creating.\n  The Democratic Party used this process for their Green New Deal. They\nused this process for ObamaCare. We are using this process to help our\nmilitary, who needs help, to secure a border that has been broken, and\nto enhance the Coast Guard. That is the difference. We are doing things\nthat need to be done to make us safe.\n  Mr. President, 3,000 Americans die every 2 weeks because fentanyl\ncomes across the border. We are going to fix that.\n  Since President Trump has been in office, border crossings have gone\ndown by 90 percent. We want to reinforce this success. We want to\nfinish that wall. We want to make sure we never release another person\nin this country because we don't have a bed. We are going to make sure\nthe criminal gangs keep leaving, not staying because ICE doesn't have\nenough money.\n  Why are we doing this? Because Tom Homan and Mr. Vought, the head of\nOMB, told us 2 weeks ago that we are out of money to finish the job\nPresident Trump started.\n  To my House colleagues: I prefer one big beautiful bill that makes\nthe tax cuts permanent, that does the things we need to do on the\nborder and with our military and cuts spending. I wish you all the\nbest. I prefer what you are doing to what we are doing, but we have to\nhave a plan B if you can't get it done soon.\n  What is the Senate doing? We have decided to front-end load security.\nWe want to cut taxes. We want to make the tax cuts permanent. We are\ngoing to work with our House colleagues to do that. They expire at the\nend of the year, but we have time to do that.\n  It is the view of the Republican Senate that when it comes to border\nsecurity, we need not fail. We should have the money now to keep the\nmomentum going. When it comes to the Republican Senate, we believe the\nmilitary needs money now because the world is on fire.\n  To my House colleagues: We will all get there together. If you can\npass the one big beautiful bill that makes the tax cuts permanent--not\n4, 5 years--then we will all cheer over here. Nothing would please me\nmore than Speaker Johnson being able to put together the bill that\nPresident Trump wants. I want that to happen, but I cannot sit on the\nsidelines and not have a plan B.\n  This Nation is under threat. The illegal immigrants who have come\nhere by the millions need to be sent back by the millions. The border\nneeds to be secured. The wall needs to be finished. We need more\ndetention space. We need to upgrade our military capability now.\n  The reason we are doing it now is because we were told ICE is out of\nmoney now.\n  I am hoping the House can deliver, but I am very confident that in\nthe Senate, early in the morning, Republicans--not one Democrat vote--\nwill set in motion a process that will transform our border security to\nthe most modern, aggressive border security plan in the history of the\ncountry, north and south; that it will set in motion $175 billion of\nnew spending to secure the border in a way that has never been achieved\nin the past.\n  If this resolution fails, God help us all. If this resolution passes,\nhelp is on the way.\n  If you believe that America needs to be serious about securing our\nborder, this bill gets the job done. If you believe the military needs\nto be stronger, not weaker, at a time of threat, this bill gets it\ndone. If you believe the Coast Guard needs more capability to deal with\ndrugs and national security threats, this bill delivers. This is a\nsecurity bill.\n  This is a bill that will combat fentanyl killing Americans. There are\nmore Americans dying every 2 weeks from fentanyl than on 9/11. Hundreds\nof thousands of young Americans--young and old but mostly young--have\ndied from fentanyl poisoning coming across that southern border. We are\ngoing to go after those cartels. I am confident that President Trump is\nthe new sheriff in town that we need. But without resources, it won't\nwork.\n  Tom Homan came to us and begged us for money to continue the plan he\nhas enacted to get gangs out of this country, to secure that border,\nand to add more detention space.\n  Tom, we heard you. We are going to meet your needs.\n  I am excited about this debate. I am excited about Republican-led\nchairmen finding ways to reduce spending to pay for this.\n  This is a big deal, folks. The Republican Party is going to go all in\non border security. We are going to upgrade our defense capability, and\nwe are going to pay for it.\n  Has anybody at home ever had to pick between two things? You couldn't\ndo everything. You couldn't have it all. You had to spend because your\nchild got sick or hurt, and you had to cut somewhere else because there\nwasn't enough money to do both. We are going to set priorities. If you\nhave a sick child or something bad in your family happens, that goes\nfirst. That means you have to pick somewhere else--except in\nWashington.\n  That model is over. We are going to start a new way of doing\nbusiness. We are going to spend on things that need to be done and\nshould be done by the Federal Government to keep us safe, and we are\ngoing to offset it by reducing spending in areas that are not as\nimportant.\n  I am excited about this process. I urge my colleagues to come down on\nboth sides of the aisle and participate in this debate. This is what I\nwas elected to do, I think--make America safe and prosperous and do it\nin a fiscally responsible way. The idea that we are going to actually\noffset spending is a great day. We are going to deliver.\n  This is going to go into the night. Our Democratic colleagues are\ngoing to have a chance to offer a lot of amendments to our approach.\nThey will want this and they will want that. What breaks my heart is\nthey don't see the value what we are trying to do.\n  Every American should want more money going into DHS to secure our\nborder. Every American should want more capability in the hands of the\nmilitary at a time of great threat. But we can't get there. We can't\nreach common ground on those issues. So we are going to use the process\nthey used. They used the process to create ObamaCare, the Green New\nDeal, and the Inflation Reduction Act. We are going to use that very\nsame process to make the cartel's life miserable, to go after criminal\ngangs, to finish the wall, upgrade the capability of the Coast Guard,\nand make our military the most lethal it has been since Ronald Reagan,\nand we are going to pay for it all.\n  In a bit, I will read a script that starts the process.\n  To the Senator from Ohio, the Presiding Officer, this is why you\ncame. This is what you promised to do. I was on the campaign with you,\nand you looked your voters in the eye and said: We are going to do\nthings different. We are going to secure our border, we are stop the\nfentanyl from poisoning your kids, and we are going to be serious about\nfiscal responsibility. We are going to pay for all of this.\n  Mr. President, you have a chance here to do what you promised you\nwould do.\n\n[[Page S1077]]\n\n  All of us on this side of the aisle--people are counting on us. They\nare counting on this Republican majority to deal with the mess that has\nbeen created for the last 4 years. They are counting on this Republican\nmajority to give the President the money he needs to do the job that he\npromised to do. And we are going to deliver. We are going to do it, and\nwe are going to do it tonight. If it is 5 o'clock in the morning--I\ndon't care how long it takes--we are going to deliver, and we are going\nto pay for everything we do.\n  In a little bit, in a small period of time, around 5 o'clock, we are\ngoing to start this process. This is a big deal, folks. This is not\njust business as usual in Washington; this is a different way of doing\nbusiness.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we need to be focused on solving\nproblems. I think most of us here get that. No matter who the President\nis, our constituents expect us to work for them. They expect us to\nfight for them, and they expect us to do the hard work of passing laws\nto make their lives better.\n  People don't send us here to make their lives worse, but that is\nexactly what Trump and Musk are doing. They are looking at our most\npressing problems and making them worse. This budget proposal will only\nadd fuel to that fire.\n  Right now, even as egg prices hit an alltime high, Trump and Musk\nhave done nothing to lower prices. They have done nothing to address\nthe housing crisis or help families get quality, affordable childcare\nor address other issues I hear about from folks all the time. Instead,\nthey are slashing programs that help our families make ends meet. They\nare gutting an Agency that saves working people money and protects them\nfrom scams and starting trade wars that will impose what is effectively\na Trump sales tax entirely on the backs of American workers.\n  As China works to strengthen its global leadership, Trump and Musk\nhave ceded the ground almost entirely, illegally cutting off\ninvestments we make to continue our country's leadership and help our\nallies.\n  At the most precarious moment for the Middle East in decades, Trump\nis casually proposing to ethnically cleanse Gaza so that Trump and his\nfamily can build waterfront property there.\n  When it comes to helping our allies in Ukraine secure a just peace,\nTrump is giving away countless concessions to Putin--out of the gate--\ncalling our ally a ``dictator'' and meeting with Russia without\ninviting Ukraine.\n  When it comes to the bird flu, Trump and Musk are firing the very\nworkers who are responsible for tracking the disease and keeping it\nfrom spreading further; and now, suddenly, they are desperately trying\nto hire them back.\n  As Texas deals with a serious measles outbreak, Trump's Secretary\ncan't even confirm the obvious and tell parents the vaccine doesn't\ncause autism, which, to be clear, it does not.\n  And almost unbelievably--just weeks after the deadliest commercial\nplane crash in the United States in over two decades--Trump and Musk\nare firing FAA workers who make sure flying is safe. Who does that\nhelp?\n  Now Trump is letting Musk run wild by inappropriately accessing and\nrifling through sensitive SSA and Treasury files, with the IRS being\nnext--your data. How does that make sense?\n  But while President Trump is busy making problems worse and trampling\nour laws and quoting dictators, what are we doing here in the Senate?\nAre we holding President Trump accountable? Are we holding his ``co-\nPresident,'' Elon Musk--the richest man in the world who has billions\nof dollars in conflicts of interest--accountable? Are we putting a stop\nto the catastrophic cuts and reckless firings that are hurting people\nand our communities and setting our country back decades?\n  It seems to me that would be a good use of time. After all, I have\neven heard some Republicans admit that cutting things like medical\nresearch and firing people like our VA workers are bad ideas. So you\nwould think, maybe, we could work together from that common ground,\nbut, instead, Republicans are throwing all their effort behind a\npartisan plan to slash and burn programs that help our families and\nraise costs for everyday Americans and shovel billions of dollars to\nhelp people who already have billions of dollars.\n  Meanwhile, I would like to recommend to my colleagues that we are\nless than a month away from a deadline to pass bills to fund our\ngovernment, and as we approach that deadline, the entire world is\nwatching as President Trump and Elon Musk shut the government down bit\nby bit--whatever parts Elon doesn't like. Trump and Musk are already\nshowing thousands of our essential workers the door despite the fact\nthey have no clue what those workers do or why their jobs matter. They\nare just turning off the lights and hoping for the best.\n  I am hearing so much alarm on this from back home--from fired workers\nand from the people who depend on them. Trump and his ``co-President''\nare shuttering entire Agencies. They are locking workers out of their\ndevices and out of their buildings and demanding the work of the\nAmerican people come to a screeching halt--again, for no good reason.\n  Let me really drive home just how damaging and extreme these firings\nare because we are not talking about some routine changing of the guard\nor some thoughtful or strategic plan to make government more efficient.\nTrump and Musk are just taking a wrecking ball to the U.S. Government.\nThey don't care what they smash up. They don't care whom they hurt, and\nthey don't seem to have any idea just how painful this is for American\nfamilies. We are talking about tens of thousands of people--and\ncounting--being pushed out the door without any plan and without any\njustification beyond Trump and Elon just wanting to slash and cut with\nreckless abandon.\n  This has nothing to do with making government more efficient; it is\nabout breaking it beyond repair. Fundamentally, this is not about\ncutting waste or curbing fraud. Instead, this is about putting the\nFederal workforce into trauma. That is how OMB Director Russell Vought\ncallously put it. So they are mass firing hard-working women and men--\nmany of them veterans--whose only mistake was serving our country,\nserving our communities, and believing they wouldn't get stabbed in the\nback by a wannabe dictator and the richest man in the world.\n  In setting aside the fact that many were illegally fired and without\nreal cause, it is not just the workers who are suffering because of\nthis. These cuts undermine essential services for the American people\nright down to some of the most basic functions of government.\n  Trump and Musk are firing people who help Americans find quality,\naffordable health insurance; people who help small businesses get a\nloan; people who help communities and families get back on their feet\nafter a disaster; and people who help Americans get their tax refunds.\n  They are firing people who help our economy stay competitive--from\nfirings that undermine energy projects and thousands of good new jobs\nto firings that undermine innovation and technology, to firings that\nare hurting our farmers and undermining agricultural research.\n  They are laying off national park rangers, which will mean longer\nwait times, dirtier bathrooms, delayed emergency responses, and closed\nparks. They fired Forest Service workers who are crucial to preventing\nwildfires.\n  Again, I have to emphasize they are firing FAA workers, for crying\nout loud, including personnel who work on radar and landing and other\ncritical infrastructure that help our aircraft navigate safely. They\nare firing these people and pretending it is no big deal, all just\nweeks after, by the way, the deadliest crash our Nation has seen in\ndecades. Trump and Elon might not fly commercial, but the rest of us\ndo.\n  In the Pacific Northwest, the Bonneville Power Administration is\nlosing hundreds of highly skilled workers, and that includes everyone\nfrom electricians, engineers, dispatchers, line workers, cybersecurity\nexperts, and many more. These are literally the people who keep the\nlights on, and now they are being fired on a whim because Trump and\nElon Musk do not have a clue about what they do and why it is\nimportant. And do you know what? They don't care. They don't even seem\nto understand, actually, that these positions are funded by\nratepayers--by all of us who live in the Northwest. They are not from\nFederal funding.\n\n[[Page S1078]]\n\n  Trump and Musk have even fired over 1,000 VA workers, including\npeople who are doing lifesaving research for our veterans: research to\nprevent veteran suicide; to build life-changing prosthetics; and to\naddress opioid addiction and more. These layoffs will mean longer wait\ntimes for veterans to see their healthcare providers. It could mean\nongoing clinical trials coming to a sudden stop. It means delays in\ngetting your disability claim approved because Trump and Musk went\nahead and fired clinicians and claims raters even while, today, the\ncurrent backlog of disability claims is over 250,000. That is not just\na betrayal of these public workers; it is a betrayal of our women and\nmen who have served us in uniform. It is also worth noting that many of\nthe workers being fired are veterans themselves. Trump is firing\nveterans.\n\n  And let's not forget the thousands of NIH researchers who are having\ntheir research thrown into jeopardy and the patients who are watching\nPresident Trump carelessly toss their best hope for a cure into the\nshredder--or CMS experts. They are working on improving maternal health\noutcomes so fewer pregnant women die in this country.\n  Medical research layoffs aren't the only ones putting American lives\nat risk because Trump and Musk are firing public health workers who\nrespond to disease outbreaks: cybersecurity experts who protect our\ncritical infrastructure, sensitive systems, and our data; scientists\nwho make sure our water and our air are clean and that we are ready for\nextreme weather; workers who help our communities prepare for, respond\nto, and recover from disasters, not to mention members of law\nenforcement who help stop violent criminals, and, of course, our\nnuclear engineers.\n  Seriously, people who manage our nuclear weapons stockpile are being\nfired by the hundreds with no real strategy, and we know there is no\nstrategy because then Trump and Musk frantically turned around and\nrehired many of them. We also know they haven't learned their lesson\nbecause they just did the exact same thing to our workers who are\nresponding to bird flu--reckless layoffs followed by: Wait. No. Come\nback.\n  That is not a plan. That is not a plan. To callously fire people who\nhelp us stay ahead of deadly diseases and to maintain a safe, secure,\nand reliable nuclear weapons stockpile--that is the height of dangerous\nincompetence.\n  Nuclear cleanup work has been hit as well. I have been fighting to\nget more resources for the Hanford cleanup in Washington State for\nyears. It is already understaffed, and now Trump is actively making\nthings worse. I have heard directly--directly--from workers at Hanford\nwho have been laid off even after some were recognized just this past\nyear for their outstanding work.\n  And, by the way, that underscores another reality of these firings:\nThey have absolutely nothing to do with merit. In fact, they are\ntargeting new employees, including people who were recently promoted.\nSo now these workers are getting fired from their newly earned jobs--\nliterally pushing out some of our best performers and our most\ncommitted workers.\n  One more thing. They are even illegally firing the government\nwatchdogs who provide accountability and prevent fraud. If Trump and\nMusk were really committed to tackling waste, fraud, and abuse, would\nthey fire the very people serving in nonpartisan roles and whose very\njobs are to uncover and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse? If they were\nreally interested in transparency, would they have torn down websites\nwhere the public can find information about Agencies' spending and\npolicy?\n  The list of pointless, actively dangerous firings goes on and on. It\ngrows by the day as does the followup alarm being caused by it. My\nphones have been ringing off the hook, and I know I am not the only\none. Again, these sweeping layoffs do not address fraud or waste. They\nare totally arbitrary, pushing out high performers and the promising\nnext generation of our Federal workforce, which won't be easily\nreplaced, not to mention the hiring freeze prevents them from even\ntrying.\n  And here is the thing that is so important to remember: These are\npeople who have families. They work hard. They love their country. They\nare not being sent packing because they have done anything wrong or\nbecause their work is not important. They are being pushed out simply\nbecause Trump and Musk are trying to break the government, trying to\nmake it not work for the people who need it. It is wrong, and if this\ndoesn't stop now, it will be catastrophic.\n  The scale and scope of Trump and Elon's purge will set our country\nback decades. It is not like you can fire anyone and say: Oh, wait--my\nbad--and hire them back with the snap of a finger. If you are a VA\nmedical researcher, working for less than you could make in the private\nsector, and you are fired by a billionaire who decides your research on\ncancer and burn pit exposure isn't worth the investment, would you want\nto come back, especially with the chaos and sheer incompetence of this\nadministration?\n  The Federal Government is not Twitter. You can't just fire everyone\nand break things and hope for the best. People's lives are at stake.\nElon Musk has no clue what nuclear safety engineers do at Hanford. He\ndoesn't care that the Social Security Administration is already\nunderstaffed, and pushing more of those Federal workers out the door\nwill make life harder for our seniors.\n  This effort to push out and arbitrarily fire Federal workers is going\nto break something worse than it already has, and it is going to break\nit irreparably. When that happens, the blame will fall squarely on\nTrump and Musk and the Republicans.\n  And it is not just people being fired that is a serious problem.\nThere are also still--still today--funds frozen without rhyme or reason\nor legal authority for Trump to do that. So I am not only worried about\nthe fast-approaching funding deadline in March, I am worried about the\nde facto government shutdown that is happening right now. As we speak,\nTrump and Musk are still illegally blocking hundreds of billions of\ndollars in funding we all secured for the people we represent back\nhome, putting good-paying jobs on the chopping block, creating\nincredible uncertainty for businesses, stalling funds for our\ninfrastructure and energy projects, and a lot more.\n  As another week of Trump's illegally funding blockade has come and\ngone, still, reports are coming in from across my State and across the\ncountry of the chaos and cuts this is causing, and yet little to\nnothing has been done by this administration to restore investments in\npeople in red and blue States that they are counting on.\n  Republicans here in Congress continue to sit by idly while our\ncommunities are robbed of hundreds of billions of dollars in bipartisan\nspending. Meanwhile, it is our workers, it is our families, it is our\nbusinesses that are feeling this consequence. With each day that\npasses, the uncertain fate of these investments takes a toll of its\nown: ever-growing anxiety for workers whose jobs are in jeopardy, for\nfarmers who are eyeing the calendar and waiting on resources that they\nare owed, for business owners worried a ripped-up contract might put\nthem under.\n  I have heard USDA grants have been cut off to rural businesses and\nfarmers in my home State of Washington, and it is putting those hard-\nworking Americans in dire straits.\n  A small laundromat ordered new machines, but now Trump is stiffing\nthem on funds they need to make that payment.\n  A wheat farmer installed solar panels under a Federal program, but\nTrump is going to leave them holding the bag.\n  A greenhouse has completed its end of the bargain to install\nupgrades. Trump has stopped the Federal Government from doing the part\nit promised.\n  And there are so many other Federal investments on hold as well:\nForest Service funding to reduce wildfire risks and restore ecosystems,\nEPA funding for clean water infrastructure and cleanup work on our\nSuperfund sites, HUD and Department of Energy investments to bring down\nfolks' energy costs and create new, good-paying jobs, funding for our\nroads and bridges and transit and flood mapping and fisheries--so many\nother things.\n  Medical research has also been completely upended at research\ninstitutions across our country, throwing lifesaving research, clinical\ntrials, and patients into uncertainty.\n  Meanwhile, they have not only illegally blocked our foreign\nassistance and shuttered USAID programs that\n\n[[Page S1079]]\n\nbolster our global leadership and make the world safer for Americans,\nthey are now illegally dismantling the Department of Education. They\nhave already bulldozed the independent research arm of the Department\nof Education. They are taking a wrecking ball to ongoing evidence-based\nresearch and basic collection data we need for accountability to\nimprove student outcomes at our K through 12 schools and colleges.\n  And among the many contracts Trump canceled with his Executive orders\nwas funding for a program that helps students with disabilities\ntransition from high school to work and work to improve adoption of\nevidence-based literacy practices in Washington State.\n  These billionaires have no idea what programs they are cutting. Given\nthe chaos of all these efforts--from Trump's sweeping, radical, and\nillegal Executive orders to Elon Musk jumping from Agency to Agency and\ndoing seemingly whatever he pleases and whatever is good for his\nbusiness--it is getting hard to even keep track of all the funding that\nis being illegally blocked. Even stuff they say is not blocked or say\nhas been unblocked is still frozen.\n  But one thing that is clear: This is hurting our families, hurting\nour communities, and it needs to stop.\n  Remember, Musk is the richest man on Earth, with deep business ties\nto China and a direct line to Putin. Republicans have chosen to stand\nby and twiddle their thumbs as he unilaterally, clandestinely, and\nillegally cuts our constituents off from the Federal investments they\nare owed and badly in need of. We have zero insight or oversight of\nwhat conflicts of interest Musk has, as he chokes off government\nfunding left and right and as he hands over our sensitive financial\ndata and systems to patently unqualified individuals with no\naccountability.\n  This multibillionaire is operating completely in the dark, hoping his\nlies are loud enough to drown out any calls for truth or transparency.\n  You can agree or disagree about Federal spending. Goodness knows, we\nhave a lot of debates on it here. But it is a complete lie to try and\nsay this is all fraud, waste, or conspiracy.\n  As a longtime appropriator, I can tell you, we debate these bills\npublicly. We post the details out in the open. We pass them in a\nbipartisan way. Republicans overwhelmingly supported the individual\nbills we put together in committee last year--many unanimously.\n  Spending is not a ``conspiracy'' just because Elon Musk doesn't know\nhow to read USAspending.gov. A program is not waste just because it\ndoesn't help the richest man in the world. It is not fraud just because\nhe doesn't like it. A law is not illegal just because he disagrees with\nit.\n  This guy just does not know what he is talking about, and it is,\nfrankly, embarrassing. He doesn't know how to count.\n  The DOGE website says it is slashing $55 billion, but it only lists\n$16.6 billion, and half of that is a typo. They took $8 million, with\nan M, as in ``Musk can't count'' and counted it as $8 billion, with a\nB, as in ``BS.'' That is not saving money; it is poor reading\ncomprehension.\n  Speaking of reading comprehension, I don't think Elon fully grasps\nwhat the concepts of transparency and accountability mean.\n  When he tweeted out the names of government employees months ago--and\nagain this month, even--that was accountability. But when reporters\nname people gaining illegal access to Treasury's payment system, that\nis a crime?\n  Elon Musk gets to look at all of our most sensitive data, but no one\ngets to look at what he is actually doing? That cannot be the standard.\nIt is not ``maximally transparent'' for Elon Musk to decide for himself\nwhat he shares publicly about his actions. It is maximally concerning,\nespecially given that there are many obvious conflicts of interest but\nElon has not recused himself from a single decision.\n  How is it not a conflict when the owner of SpaceX is gutting NASA\nwhile taxpayer funds to his company keep flowing?\n  How is it not blatant corruption when the owner of Tesla is freezing\ngrants and loans that benefit his competitors?\n  How are we supposed to just trust him when he is probing Agencies\nthat have done--or are doing right now--investigations into his\nbusinesses?\n  Trump fired the Ag inspector general who was investigating Elon's\ncompany Neuralink and then fired the FDA officials who were reviewing\nit. He fired the EPA inspector general and Transportation inspector\ngeneral as they were looking at Tesla. He fired the Labor inspector\ngeneral, as the Department has several investigations into Musk's\ncompanies. And Trump fired the Defense inspector general who was\nlooking at SpaceX and, notably, Musk's connection to Putin.\n  And it is not just Musk who is concerning. He has brought on an army\nof walking redflags to pry into our government's most sensitive data.\n  How are Americans supposed to feel knowing someone who was previously\nfired for leaking sensitive information from their employer is digging\nthrough their most private financial data?\n  How are Americans supposed to feel knowing someone who engaged with\nprominent White supremacists and misogynists online is helping to shut\ndown USAID?\n  How are they supposed to feel knowing someone who tweeted explicitly\nracist statements, someone who said they were ``racist before it was\ncool'' was given control over incredibly important Treasury payments?\n  What sort of vetting, if any, is going on here? Are they trying to\npick the least qualified, most concerning people?\n  Hey, Elon, you were supposed to filter out redflags, not select for\nthem.\n  The American people deserve transparency. If Elon Musk really has\nnothing to hide, then he should leave his safe place on X and at Trump\nrallies and come before us at a congressional hearing to be held\naccountable to the public.\n  What they are doing here is not just illegal; it is devastating for\nworking people in every ZIP code in America, red and blue States alike.\n  Right now, we need to be speaking out with a unified voice to ensure\nthat when Congress passes a bill, the law is followed. And we need to\nfocus on negotiating serious funding bills on a bipartisan basis ahead\nof the fast-approaching March 14 deadline. That is exactly what I am\ntrying to do right now, and a long-term CR should not be acceptable for\nanyone here.\n  As I have reminded my colleagues many times now, there is a world of\ndifference between a short-term CR that gives us additional time for\ngood-faith negotiations on full-year funding bills and a long-term CR\nthat would not only create major shortfalls for critical programs but\nwould also hand vast power over spending decisions to an administration\nthat absolutely cannot and should not be trusted.\n  Passing a clean, full-year CR would, first of all, create major\nshortfalls and fail to adjust for new realities on the ground; it could\nmean that instead of babies getting fed through WIC, moms are getting\nput on a waitlist for the first time in that program's history, and\ninstead of families getting rental assistance, they get cut off.\n  A clean, full-year CR means veterans are not able to get the care\nthey need and the benefits they have earned in a timely way, and it\nmeans our military falling behind, from forcing cuts across DOD to\npausing promotions, station changes, and other really essential\nfunctions.\n  It also means losing opportunities to provide resources for new\nchallenges and to provide a check on Trump policies, including ones it\nis clear Members on both sides of this aisle have issues with.\n  And on that note, I want to emphasize--because this is really\ncritical--unlike a short-term CR, a clean, full-year CR means hundreds\nof specific funding directives from Congress fall away, effectively\ncreating slush funds for this administration to adjust spending\npriorities and potentially eliminate longstanding programs as they see\nfit. That is a nonstarter.\n  With a full-year CR, Congress would be turning over our power of the\npurse to a President who has already shown he couldn't care less about\nthe separation of powers.\n  A year-long CR would be a green light for President Trump, Elon Musk,\nand Russell Vought to redirect funding to their own pet projects and\nslash and\n\n[[Page S1080]]\n\nburn and zero out the programs we have supported from Congress that our\nfamilies count on. Maybe they siphon money away from public schools.\nMaybe they slash Federal work study grants and financial aid. Maybe\nthey zero out money for national parks or monuments they think are too\nwoke. What would that even mean?\n  Maybe they scrap all our oversight of immigration courts or end\nfamily reunification or dismantle the guardrails for detaining\nimmigrants--something we are already seeing, by the way, with the use\nof Guantanamo Bay.\n  They could cut funding to eliminate HIV, address maternal mortality,\nor increase vaccination rates. They could turn our constituents'\npriorities into slush funds. Clean energy investments could become a\npayday for fossil fuels. Money meant to stop fentanyl and opioids could\nfuel private prison operations and mass deportations.\n  Congress must detail its spending priorities and direct President\nTrump to implement these programs faithfully by passing appropriations\nbills, just as it does every year. There is truly no telling just how\nfar they would go in bending our Federal budget from what our\nconstituents need to whatever Trump and Musk want.\n  If you don't think things could get worse, you are wrong. A clean,\nyearlong CR is, frankly, an unacceptable outcome. We cannot tell our\nconstituents that instead of using our authority to check a President,\nwe give him the keys to the kingdom. We cannot say: Instead of fighting\nto get you the resources you need, we will let a billionaire have more\nsay in where your tax dollar goes instead.\n  So we need Republicans to get serious about these bipartisan funding\nbills. And we have got to know that once those bills become law, Trump\nwill actually follow them. We cannot just reach an agreement, pass a\nbill, and then stand by while President Trump rips our laws in half.\n  There is a serious bipartisan path forward for our country, but it is\none where Congress works together to avoid a shutdown, stops the de\nfacto shutdown that is already happening, and reasserts its authority\nto protect the funding our communities need. But, unfortunately, that\nis a far cry from the path Republicans are going down with this pro-\nbillionaire, anti-middle class budget resolution that is on the floor.\n  Let's be very clear: Republicans' budget resolution doesn't just\naccept; it actually doubles down on what Trump and Musk are doing.\n  And it is not about balancing the budget--we all know that--because\nthey don't plan to reverse one of the biggest drivers of the debt:\nRepublican tax cuts. Despite all of the bogeymen Republicans like to\npoint to as driving the national debt, the reality is that the single\nbiggest driver of our national debt since 2001 has been Republican tax\ncuts. The Trump and Bush tax cuts have cost our Nation over $10\ntrillion and counting.\n  And you will never guess what our colleagues on the other side of the\naisle are focused on right now. Nothing to lower the cost of eggs. It\nis actually more Republican tax cuts.\n  And, no, they will not be paid for, and, yes, they will blow up the\nnational debt. While Elon Musk hacks and chops his way through the\ngovernment in the name of meager ``savings'' and Republicans are\ncheering him on, they are all hoping that we will ignore the elephant\nthey brought into the room, even as this budget is a roadmap for\npainful cuts to programs families count on each and every day--all so\nthey can give billionaires more tax cuts.\n  Republicans are going down this partisan path because they know\nDemocrats are not going to join them in throwing Medicaid, nutrition\nassistance, and veterans benefits into the woodchuck so they can throw\nmore tax cuts at billionaires and the biggest corporations.\n  Make no mistake, this budget resolution is the DOGE resolution, as it\nassumes a staggering amount of $1 trillion in unspecified cuts in 2025\nalone and $9 trillion over 10 years. Where do we think those kinds of\ndramatic cuts are going to come from? It is going to come out of SNAP\nbenefits that keep our kids from going hungry. It is going to come out\nof our public schools and community health centers. It is going to come\nout of lifesaving medical research.\n  It will mean costs going up--up--for everyday Americans. It means\nchildcare costs going up when families lose access to Head Start and\nother quality, affordable options. It means heating and cooling costs\ngoing up when families get cut off from LIHEAP. It means rent going up\nas assistance programs get slashed. It means your healthcare costs go\nup as community health centers and family planning providers are forced\nto close their doors. It means grocery costs going up as programs like\nSNAP and WIC are gutted, not to mention what happens when you cut\nsupport for farmers and for ag research.\n  And make no mistake, if you are cutting that deeply, that painfully,\nyou are going to start cutting things like veterans' disability and\neducation benefits. You are going to start cutting Medicare and\nMedicaid, which, for the information of all Senators, 30 million\nchildren rely on.\n  There is just no other way to make those numbers work, especially\nwhen we know that this is just step one in their plan. And step two is\ntax breaks for billionaires and massive corporations.\n  So, first, they are handing Elon Musk a chain saw to cut programs\nthat families rely on, with no accountability. Then they are rewarding\nhim with enormous tax breaks, and that is completely unacceptable. We\nshould not be taking kids out of childcare to give billionaires a tax\nbreak. We should not be taking food off the family table to put more\nfuel in private jets.\n  I grew up in a family that knew what it was like to fall on hard\ntimes. My dad, who was a veteran, got too sick to work. He had multiple\nsclerosis. My mom kept us afloat with my dad's VA benefits and food\nstamps and a new job that she got thanks to a Federal workforce\nprogram.\n  It wasn't easy. Mom always said they crawled--crawled--to Social\nSecurity and Medicare, but she worked hard, and our government was\nthere for them when those hard times came. I know there are families\nstruggling right now just like my family struggled then. I hear from\nthem every day in the letters we get here in Washington, DC, and in the\nconversations I have back home in Washington State.\n  They work hard. They play by the rules. They deserve, at the very\nleast, the same opportunity my parents had when I was growing up. And I\nam not going to stand by silently while Republicans try to sell that\nopportunity away to pay for even more tax breaks for billionaires.\n  I get why that sounds like a good idea to billionaires like Donald\nTrump. I get why it is a sweet deal for Elon Musk, the richest man in\nthe world. It is great for them because they are not the ones footing\nthe bill. The bill for these tax breaks--the cost of these cuts--is\ngoing to be paid by folks like my mom and dad.\n  Everyday Americans will pay for billionaire tax breaks with their\nhealthcare. They will pay for billionaire tax breaks with abandoned\nmedical research. They will pay for billionaire tax breaks with\nshuttered family farms and small businesses.\n  And Republicans can try and spin a fairytale about how this will pay\nfor itself, how this will work out for everyone, and how nothing anyone\ncares about will be affected. But the reality is going to show through\npretty darn quick and pretty darn painfully because spin is not going\nto put food on the table. It will not pay the rent. It won't fix the\nroads. It won't lower prices. It won't lower interest rates, and it\nwon't put money in families' dwindling bank accounts.\n  When it comes to the job we are all sent here to do, helping people\nand solving problems, families need real solutions, not tax breaks for\nbillionaires and talking points for everyone who loses out.\n  Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues: Hit the brakes--and not\njust on this devastating partisan budget resolution. Hit the brakes on\nwhat President Trump and Elon Musk are doing right now. Let's, instead,\ncome together and work on serious bipartisan bills to fund the\ngovernment. Let's get investments that are sorely needed out to the\nfolks we represent. Let's pass legislation that gives folks a hand\ninstead of this Republican plan that gives billionaires a handout.\n\n[[Page S1081]]\n\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The Senator from Kentucky.\n  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, things are not as they appear to be, and in\nWashington, that is not unusual. In fact, that may be the norm--that in\nWashington, things are often not what they appear to be.\n  If you follow the news, you have been seeing reports of Elon Musk and\nDOGE and getting rid of waste and fraud and abuse by the billions, if\nnot trillions, of dollars. And yet, we are meeting here today, though,\nbecause Congress, namely the Senate, wants to increase Federal\nspending.\n  So on the one hand, you have Elon Musk and DOGE, and the Democrats\ncomplaining to high heavens, ``They are cutting too much; they are\ncutting too much,'' and Senate Republicans are coming forward today to\npass a budget to allow them to raise Federal spending. What gives?\n  Are Republicans for getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse and\nreducing the deficit, balancing the budget, as the President says? Or\nare they really for increasing spending $340 billion?\n  The budget that we will vote on will allow increased spending in the\nmilitary by $150 billion; increased spending for the border, $175\nbillion; $20 billion for the Coast Guard. That adds up to about $340\nbillion.\n  Well, if we were fiscally prudent, if we were fiscally conservative,\nwhy wouldn't we take the savings from Elon Musk and DOGE and move it\nover here and help with the border? Why would we be doing a brandnew\nbill to increase spending by $340 billion?\n  That is because the Senate is acting as it always has. The Senate\nhasn't gotten the message. President Trump came to town--a new way of\nthinking. They are shuttering the Agencies. They are shutting people\ndown. They are buying things like $2 million spent in Guatemala for sex\nchanges, $2 million spent in Brazil for girl-centric climate change,\n$4.8 million spent in Ukraine for social media influencers.\n  While you are at it, we spent--not we, but the people who voted for\nthis. I voted against all of this. But the Members of the Senate who\nvoted for this spent several hundred thousand dollars sending designers\nin Ukraine to the fashion show in Paris.\n  It goes on and on: thousands of dollars for a trans opera in\nColombia, more thousands of dollars for a trans comic book in Peru,\nhundreds of thousands of dollars spent studying rats to see if lonely\nrats use more cocaine than well-socialized rats. Guess what. Lonely\nrats love the cocaine. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of\nyour money on this craziness.\n  Why not take that crazy spending that DOGE and Elon Musk are finding\nand move it over to secure the border? Instead, fiscal conservatives\nare faced with a bill they are putting forward to just simply increase\nthe spending.\n  I am all for moving it around. I am all for saving it from the\ncraziness and pushing it over into something more valuable. There is a\nprocedure for doing this. It is a special procedure. It doesn't require\nany Democrat vote. It can happen through simple majority, and it has a\nfancy name. It is called rescission. So all the administration would\nhave to do is bundle together several million dollars of savings--which\nit appears they are finding--bundle it together in one bill, send it\nback to us, and by simple majority, without any help from the\nDemocrats, Republicans can cut spending.\n  Instead, things aren't what they appear to be. You see all this great\nwork being done to cut spending, to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, and\nthen you see the Senate acting--we are going to vote all night long to\nset up a bill to increase spending by $340 billion.\n  There is a true philosophical debate within the Republican Party--and\nreally within both parties--about what the biggest threats to our\ncountry are. Are the greatest threats to America from within or from\nwithout?\n  I would argue that they are from within. I don't lie awake at night\nfearing foreign invasion, that invaders are coming to our shores any\nmoment. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared, that we shouldn't\ndefend ourselves. But it does mean that we don't have to have unlimited\nspending on our military.\n  Look, many of my family served. Soldiers have to be paid. We should\ntake care of them. But, at the same time, we shouldn't be everywhere\naround the world, all the time.\n  We spent close to $300 billion in Ukraine. We have got soldiers all\nover Africa. We have got soldiers in Syria. We have got soldiers\neverywhere.\n  We don't need to be doing that.\n  If you want to put our military's money and spending in perspective,\nwe spend more than the next nine countries combined. It is not that we\nare spending too little. We are spending a lot. But if you decide that\nyou want more money for the military, take it from the climate change--\nthe girl-centric climate change in Brazil. Quit spending your money\noverseas.\n  Over the years, we have given Egypt nearly $60 billion. Who runs\nEgypt? A general, where there are no elections, kind of like Ukraine,\nwhere there is a president, but he doesn't have to run for reelection\nbecause he has canceled the elections.\n  Why in the world would we be giving money hand over fist to dictators\nand people who don't stand for election? In Egypt, we gave it to one\nfamily, the Mubarak family. When he was finally ousted from power, he\nhad $20 billion on him.\n  Well, it actually wasn't on him. A lot of it was in Swiss banks and\nall over the place, but he was worth 20 billion. That is nothing. Each\nof his kids was worth another 5 billion. So he basically was able to\nsteal 30 billion of the 60 billion that American taxpayers sent to\nEgypt.\n  That is foreign aid. That is the story of your foreign aid. It is\nthat you have been being ripped off decade after decade.\n  But while Elon Musk and DOGE are doing their job working overtime\nuntil late at night, finding us those savings for foreign aid, send\nthem back. We spent 40 billion in foreign aid. You could send 30\nbillion back and America would be safer and stronger, and you could put\nthe 30 billion toward either the military or to the border--your\nchoice.\n  There is money like that that can be saved and moved around, but it\nis going to have to come back. Ultimately, all the talk of the savings\nis ephemeral. It isn't real until Congress has the courage to vote on\nit. It has to be certified by a vote.\n  If Congress doesn't vote, it sort of wishes and washes around in the\nether and may or may not wind up being savings. Ultimately, Congress is\ngoing to have to do their job.\n  But what we are doing today to vote on the budget is not doing our\njob. What we are doing today, which will be a Republican-led effort--\nminus me--will be an effort to tee up a bill to increase Federal\nspending.\n  I would say, let's take the savings that we are finding, move that\nover to any accounts, do it through a vote of Congress, do it through a\nsimple majority. It can actually be done even without the budgetary\nprocess.\n  A rescission package can be sent back without even going through the\nwhole budget problem. What we are faced with, though, is come the end\nof the year--we are halfway through the year, so we are voting on a\nbudget today that is really somewhat of a fiction because the year is\nalready half over. We know what is being spent. We know that in the\nend, we are going to spend a little over $7 trillion this year. The\nproblem is, we are going to bring in about $5 trillion, and we are\ngoing to spend about $7 trillion. We are $2 trillion short.\n  They are getting ready within weeks to add a couple hundred billion\ndollars for California. It is appropriate to have sympathy for people\nin their plight, but it is not good for the country simply to borrow\nmoney to send it to anyone. If we are going to help people in need, we\nshould be taking that money from the taxes that come in. We shouldn't\nbe borrowing it from China and sending it to California. No matter how\nnoble the purpose is, we should be spending what comes in. We should\nnot be borrowing a penny.\n  But come the end of the year, we are going to be over $2 trillion in\nincreased debt for 1 year. What is our total? Our total is going to be\nover $37 trillion, maybe $38 trillion by the end of the year. Interest?\nThe largest item in our budget is now interest--about $1 trillion in\ninterest every year. One estimate is that over the next 10 years, it\nwill be like $14 trillion in interest.\n  Now, interest doesn't buy anything. Interest isn't feeding anybody.\nInterest\n\n[[Page S1082]]\n\nisn't putting out fires in California. Interest is simply wasted\nbecause of the profligate ways of both parties.\n  People voted for a change. They said: We are going to get a change.\nThey like what Donald Trump is doing. They like what DOGE is doing.\nThey like what Elon is doing. Yet here we are. The Republicans are\nacting like the Democrats. They are going to vote to increase spending\nby $342 billion. It is all going to be borrowed.\n  Now, some will say: We are going to cut spending to equalize the\nmoney we are going to spend here. But none of that is listed in the\nbudget.\n  Now, the House has a budget. The House Republicans have passed a\ndifferent budget, and in their budget, they list $1.5 trillion worth of\nsavings. They have to get to this. They cannot do their special simple\nmajority vote, the reconciliation vote, unless they find $1.5 trillion.\n  In the Senate bill, there is $4 billion. Now, they will say, ``That\nis just a floor; we are going to find more than that,'' but all they\nwould promise was the 4. In the House, they realized that is not really\nbelievable, that is not really comforting, so the House said: No, we\nare doing $1.5 trillion.\n  So as this debate unfolds over the next 10, 12, 15 hours--we will be\nhere for a long time. You know, get your popcorn. Turn your C-SPAN on.\nBut as this unfolds, I will offer an amendment, and my amendment will\nsay, let's alter the budget to not only say we are going to increase\nspending by $340 billion, my amendment will say we should cut spending\nto pay for it by $1.5 trillion.\n  Ideally, we would do this simply by bringing a rescission package of\nthe savings that Elon and DOGE are finding, but it would work this way\nas well to at least show that we are serious about this. I have seen\nthis happen again and again, and I know how the story is going to turn\nout. I know that come September, which is the end of our fiscal year,\nwe are about halfway through it. As we get to the end of the fiscal\nyear, Republicans are going to be going: Uh-oh, I have to go home and\nexplain to people that the deficit is $2.2 trillion--one of the worst\nyears ever. I have to explain to people ``Republicans are in charge; we\nare taking care of it now'' when it looks like the problem is getting\nworse.\n  We have to immediately start cutting spending. Every Republican needs\nto be voting to cut spending. There is a way to do it. It is called a\nrescission package.\n  If you continue to borrow, though, if you think ``I am going to be\nnice to everyone and give everyone money,'' you can do it, but the\nborrowing is going to crowd out everything, because we have made many,\nmany promises. We have promised people Medicare. We promised people\nMedicaid. We promised people Social Security. We promised people food\nstamps. Well, guess what, that equals all of our tax revenue. Those\nfour promises--Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security--that\nequals all of our tax revenue. We don't even vote on those programs.\n  The programs that we vote on--that is the budget, that is military\nand nonmilitary--are a third of the spending. It is all borrowed now.\nEssentially, our debt equals our budget. Everything we vote to spend in\nthe budget is borrowed. So things are out of whack. You can't help\neveryone and be everything to everybody.\n  A way to look at this is, let's say you make $25,000 a year, and all\nof your money goes to your rent and your food and taking care of your\nfamily. You have nothing left over. You are working poor. You walk by\nsomebody on the side of the street, and they are homeless, and you feel\nsorry for them. Would you immediately go to a bank and borrow $1,000\nand give it to a homeless person? No, you wouldn't, because that would\nmake no sense whatsoever.\n  That is what we are doing. We look around the world, and we see\nhomeless people. We look around the world, and we see hungry people. So\nwe just simply go to China, the bank, and we borrow money from China\nand then we send it to Africa. Well, you know what, if you send your\nown money, it is charity. If you send your own money, it is noble. If\nyou send somebody else's money or you borrow the money and you make the\ncountry go further in debt and you put us more in peril, that is not\ncharity. That is what is destroying our country. That is what is eating\nus up from the inside out. The greatest threat to America is from\nwithin, not from without.\n  What happens when the currency unravels? What happens when the value\nof the dollar doesn't lose 5 percent in a year but loses 5 percent in a\nweek? That is what happens in the end stages of a currency being\ndestroyed. People say it will never happen to America. Can't happen in\nAmerica. We are the strongest dollar. We are the reserve currency of\nthe world. Can't happen here.\n\n  It can and has happened to great nations. It has happened to great\ncivilizations that have lost their currency, that have destroyed their\ncurrency. Does it always unravel gradually enough that you can fix it?\nNo. Sometimes it unravels in the space of weeks.\n  When the German money lost its value in the early 1920s after the\nfirst war, in September, it took like 100 marks to buy a loaf of bread.\nTwo weeks later, mid-September, it was 1,000 marks. At the end of\nSeptember, it was 1 million. In the middle of October, it was 10\nmillion.\n  The currency, if you look at the currency and what it would buy in a\n2-month period, was completely destroyed in a 2-month period. The\npictures from the history books will show people putting the German\nmark into wheelbarrows and wheeling it up to fires to burn for warmth.\nIt was worth more as fuel than it was to buy things. The workers were\ndemanding that they be paid more than once a day because you had to go\nout and get your pay at noon and spend it then because it was worth\nhalf as much by the end of the day. That is what it looks like when a\ncountry destroys its currency.\n  How do you destroy your currency? How does inflation occur? If you\nwatch television, you see that these people are either dishonest or\nwould fail basic economics. They are like: Well, inflation is\ntransitory, and, you know, we are not sure where it is from, but maybe\nit could be--oh, greedy people owning grocery stores causes inflation.\n  No. Inflation is an economic fact that comes from borrowing money,\nand the Federal Reserve prints up money to buy the borrowed money.\n  Treasury--when we get behind on our payments, we spend more than\ncomes in, so we have to borrow money. The Fed buys our Treasury bills.\nWell, the Fed doesn't have any money; the Fed creates that money. That\nis what inflation is. And so much of it gets passed on to government.\n  Everybody knows that in the last 3 or 4 years--and part of the\nelection was over the inflation of the Biden administration. Prices\nwere up about 20 percent over 3 or 4 years. But in order to keep up\nwith that, we built in inflation protection to most of our government\nprograms. So Social Security has cost-of-living increases. So they keep\nup with inflation or try to keep up with inflation, but as they do, the\nprograms just get larger and larger and larger, and we get more and\nmore behind the eight ball. That is what is happening.\n  But it is coming to a head. Social Security runs out of money in\n2033. When it runs out of money, everybody gets 20 to 25 percent less\nin Social Security. What do you think is going to happen in our country\nwhen the poorest among us who live only on Social Security--when they\nlose the value of their check, they lose 25 percent of their check?\nWhat do you think is going to happen in this country? And nobody is\npreparing them for it. Nobody is doing anything to reform Social\nSecurity, reform Medicare, reform Medicaid.\n  You know, people are just petrified of everything. What is so\nhorrible and so hard to say about people who are able-bodied ought to\nwork? I think everyone should work. I think everyone who is able-bodied\nshould work not as punishment but as reward. We should have a work\nrequirement on every check that goes out. Everybody should work. I\nmean, it is how you get your self-esteem. You can't give people self-\nesteem. You can't say: Here, Johnny, here is a trophy. We know you\ncan't spell or add, but here is a trophy for being a mathlete.\n  No, you have to earn your self-esteem. You earn it through work.\n  Just adding work to Medicaid and saying: You want free health\ninsurance from the government--adding a work requirement saves $100\nbillion. Having the States pay more for Medicaid. Why\n\n[[Page S1083]]\n\ndo I want the States to pay for more Medicaid? Because they don't have\na printing press. Why are the decisions of this body so awful? Because\nthere is a printing press.\n  I had a conversation with one of my Democratic colleagues, and I\nsaid: We have to make a choice. You have to decide whether you want to\nhelp the poor in our country or help the poor in Ukraine or help\nwhoever you are paying in Ukraine.\n  He said: We shouldn't have to make a choice.\n  It is like, you do have to make a choice. The fact that you think you\ndon't have to make a choice is why we are $36 trillion in the hole. You\nhave to make choices. Which comes first--Ukraine or America? You can't\ndo both because we don't have enough money. We only have enough taxes\ncoming in to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food\nstamps. Everything else is borrowed.\n  So maybe able-bodied people need to go back to work. Maybe there\nneeds to be a work requirement. Maybe, for goodness' sake, food stamps\nshouldn't buy sugared drinks, chips, Ding Dongs, and Twinkies. Could we\nnot reform our system such that we try to cure the obesity plague in\nour country by cutting back what the government buys as far as food?\n  But today, the opposite will happen. Things aren't what they appear\nto be. Things are never, in Congress, really what they seem to be. We\nwill pass a bill ostensibly by the conservative majority, but the\npurpose of this bill is to spend $340 billion in new spending.\n  Instead, what we should be doing is taking the savings from the\nwaste, fraud, and abuse that DOGE and Elon are finding--we should take\nthose savings and use it to spend for things that people think are of\nhigher priority, such as the border and/or the military.\n  But I will oppose this budget because I am not for spending more\nmoney. I will oppose this budget because I want to have nothing to do\nwith a $2.2 trillion deficit. At the end of the year, those who vote\nfor this budget and those who vote for the new spending will have to\nexplain to people at home: How about that $2.2 trillion deficit? How\ndid that happen under a Republican watch?\n  Until someone is brave enough to say no, it is going to go on and on,\nand there is a danger that if we don't stop it, we are going to destroy\nthe country.\n  So I will offer an amendment later on to cut spending, to actually\nput teeth into this budget resolution, to cut real spending, to balance\nour budget, and to do and complete the promises that the President had\nin the campaign.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a\ncolloquy with my colleague from North Carolina Senator Tillis.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                                Ukraine\n\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today\nwith my friend and colleague Senator Tillis. He and I have cochaired\nthe Senate NATO Observer Group. We have traveled together on a number\nof occasions, and we just came back on Tuesday from a very brief trip\nto Ukraine. We were joined by Senator Bennet, who is not able to join\nus right now. But I think it is important for us to come to the floor\nand to talk about what we saw and what we heard in Ukraine.\n  It was incredibly powerful to travel to Ukraine, to see firsthand the\nsituation on the ground there, and we visited a number of places during\nthe day. We met with residents in downtown Kyiv who had lost their\nhomes in the January 1 missile attack there, an attack that landed only\nabout 2 blocks from the Presidential Palace.\n  While we were there actually meeting with the folks who had lost\ntheir homes, the air raid sirens went off, which is a pretty usual\noccurrence apparently in Kyiv. Fortunately, it was not aimed at us in\ndowntown Kyiv but another outlying community. But it was a warning of\nmore incoming Russian missiles.\n  And I have seen the reports in the last couple of days that say that\nVladimir Putin wants peace, but I have to say I am skeptical because if\nhe really wants peace, nothing is stopping him from calling off those\nmissile and drone attacks, attacks that are not targeting just\nUkraine's military but that are targeting civilians throughout the\ncountry. They are damaging power stations that Ukrainians depend on for\nelectricity for daily life.\n  And, in fact, we visited one of those power stations. This is us. You\ncan see it was a very cold day. You can't see the power station in the\nbackground, but it was a unique design that had been done by the\nUkrainians in a very short period of time with help from the United\nStates to protect that site from Russian attacks. And, in fact, they\nhad just had, in late December, a missile that hit the side of the\ntransfer station in ways that, if they had not had the reinforcements,\nit would have taken down that station.\n  But what is interesting is that not only have they figured out the\ndesign on the station, but they had what they call a mobile firing\nteam; that is, two machineguns--you can see, just barely see, one of\nthem on the truck--and a radar, which is down here sort of out of\nsight, again, done with U.S. dollars.\n  They were able to protect that transfer station and have those mobile\nfiring teams at a number of sites around the country to protect their\nelectricity grid because what we know and what we heard is that the\nRussians are trying to shut down their power grid because they want to\nfreeze out the Ukrainians in this war.\n  We also visited a children's hospital that was bombed in July. We\nvisited with two teenagers, one young woman who was 16 who not only\nlost her mother in a Russian attack, but she lost her ability to walk.\n  I think she had had, Senator Tillis, about 16 operations at the point\nthat we saw her, and they were pleased that they thought she was going\nto actually be able to walk again, thanks to the great care she got at\nthe Ohmatdyt Children's Hospital that the Russians bombed--deliberately\ntargeted in July.\n  But like so many Ukrainians, the young woman we met with hasn't given\nup. Her father sat by her side, surgery after surgery. And despite the\nodds, she is learning to walk again. She reflects, I think, the\nresilience, the perseverance that we witnessed every place we went in\nevery meeting that we had.\n  Despite Russia's advantages in size and manpower, Ukrainians have not\nand will not give up, and we should not give up on them either.\n  Ukrainians have developed robotic mobile firing teams, as I said.\nThey have been able to make incredible innovations to fix damaged\nbattlefield equipment. We had a chance on our way into Ukraine to go\nthrough Poland, where they are moving equipment into Ukraine and where\nwe saw the center where they have a group chat with people on the\nfrontlines to help them with instructions on how to fix the equipment\nin realtime as it gets damaged.\n  This not only saves time and money for the Ukrainians but for us. It\nis an incredible learning opportunity for us as we think about what we\nneed to do to support our own military. So the Ukrainians are sharing\ntheir battlefield innovations and insights. It makes the United States\nstronger, and it shows how much of the assistance we have given to\nUkraine is actually going to benefit us here in America.\n  When the assistance was frozen in January, it had a major impact on\nthe ground. We spoke to NGOs in Poland, people who are supporting\nUkrainian refugees in that country. And as one of them was preparing to\ngive us a presentation, he stopped. He turned to us, and he said: I\ncan't give this presentation and act like everything is normal.\n  I thought he was one of the most impactful people we heard from. I\ndon't know if you felt that way, too, Senator Tillis.\n  But he said that on January 24, the U.S. Embassy told me to stop all\nwork. He said: I had to fire single Ukrainian mothers who escaped the\nwar and now have no jobs and no way to feed their children. He had to\nstop psychosocial support services for those who are traumatized by the\nwar. One girl they had been treating for self-harm is gone, and he\ndoesn't know if she is alive or not. He was worried she might take her\nown life.\n  Along with the stop-work orders, the NGOs were told to remove all\nAmerican flags. Think of that. American flags are coming down in\nPoland, one of the most pro-American countries that we can have.\n\n[[Page S1084]]\n\n  The people that we spoke to said that their trust has been broken.\nThe decades of investments in these alliances that we have made were\ngone with just one phone call.\n  Now, I understand that people are tired of this war. But if we think\ngiving Russia or China free rein won't affect us here in the United\nStates, we are wrong. The Russians are thrilled. Vladimir Putin has to\nbe loving this. He has always wanted to undermine NATO.\n  ``Peace for our time'' is what Chamberlain said when he signed the\npact with Hitler. Appeasement doesn't work with dictators. When\nVladimir Putin gets what he wants, it puts Americans in danger. We\nunderstand this. Putin can't be trusted. That is a realistic assessment\nof the battlefield.\n  One Ukrainian woman who lost her husband and son in the fighting told\nus she would support cease-fire negotiations but with security\nguarantees for Ukraine. Simply freezing the frontline won't do\nanything, she warned, because in a few years Russia will invade again.\nAnd she is right. Putin invaded Crimea in 2014. He invaded Ukraine\nagain in 2022.\n  There must be a guarantee that Russia won't attack again in a couple\nof years. I believe NATO membership for Ukraine needs to be on the\ntable. This is not only going to protect Ukraine from future attacks,\nit will put Ukraine in the best possible negotiating position.\n  Putin wants Ukrainians to be afraid. We saw that when we visited\nBucha. Some people may remember this was a suburb of Kyiv. It was under\nsiege for 33 days, held by the Russians. We talked to the mayor, to the\npriest of the church, we saw the mass graves where people were buried,\nthe 500-plus people, civilians, who were killed in Bucha. They were\nkilled just going about their daily lives.\n  This is the picture of the body of one of those civilians killed. You\nknow how they identified her? It was her manicurist. She identified her\nby the manicure.\n  We met with the investigators who showed us the picture of the\nRussian commander who gave the order to kill the civilians. He did it\nbecause he wanted to frighten the population. Vladimir Putin is\nresponsible for this. He is responsible for the bodies in Bucha and for\nthousands across Ukraine, and he has to be held accountable. We cannot\nlet him get away with this.\n  I want to end by underlying an important point. There is bipartisan\nsupport for Ukraine in Congress. I believe we will continue to support\nfunding and that if we had another supplemental bill that came to the\nfloor, it would pass with Republican votes because Americans like\nSenator Tillis and I and Senator Bennet, who went with us, we have been\nimpressed by the Ukrainians' courage, by their resilience, by their\nwillingness to defend their freedoms and our freedoms. They have kept\ntheir economy and their people going throughout this horrible war.\n  But by June, Ukraine is going to start running out of what they need.\nThat is why we need to use the nearly $300 billion of Russian-seized\nassets to help Ukraine rebuild. That is why I called on Secretary Rubio\nto prioritize the waivers for unfreezing aid to Ukraine.\n  Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives in the fight for a\nsovereign Ukraine. They have been on the front lines for all of us\ndefending democracy. To abandon them now would not only be a gift to\nPutin, it would endanger our allies and the security of the United\nStates.\n  I yield the floor to my colleague Senator Tillis.\n  Mr. TILLIS. I want to thank Senator Shaheen for, actually, a long-\nterm friendship and vision that she had back in 2018 when she came to\nme and wanted to reconstitute the Senate NATO Observer Group. It could\nnot have been a better time for us to pay more attention to this very\nimportant alliance.\n  But it is also, right now, today--4 days away from the 3-year\nanniversary of the invasion of Ukraine--very important to talk about\nthe nature of Vladimir Putin and the tactics that they use to terrorize\npopulations.\n  President Putin, in October, prior to the invasion in February, said\nthat he was sending troops to an area to do a training exercise. While\nwe were getting intelligence that it looked like more than that, he was\nalready lying to the world by saying: We are just going to train up our\nsoldiers a little bit more.\n  Then after the first part of the year going into January, he said:\nWell, we are doing the training exercise that just, coincidentally,\nhappens to be along the Ukrainian border, but it is just a training\nexercise.\n  And then he creates any number of pretext to then talk about how\nprovocative Ukraine is operating a democracy within their borders. And\nhe creates the pretext for a ``special military operation,'' invading\nUkraine, trying to finish what he started when he invaded Crimea back\nin 2014.\n  Vladimir Putin is a liar, a murderer, and responsible for the deaths\nof hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. And that is bad by itself. But\nyou know what is worse is when you employ tactics that intentionally\nterrorize a population.\n  Senator Shaheen talked about the power grid. I was in that meeting\nshe was talking about. Let's talk about systematically how his mind\nworks, the mind of Vladimir Putin, the leadership of Russia. It is very\ncold in Ukraine--very, very cold in the wintertime. And they have tried\nto systematically deny them heat over the winter to freeze them out.\nThey have had to spend millions of dollars hardening substations just\nto prevent families, hospitals, critical businesses, first responders\nfrom having power. That is how this man thinks.\n  But that is not bad enough. Shortly after they invaded Ukraine and\nthey got the surprise of their life that the Ukrainian people were\nwilling to fight and die for their country--and they have done it in a\nway that Putin could not possibly have imagined. Putin should be\nembarrassed. A so-called world power got repulsed by what now is the\nlargest army in Europe--standing army. It wasn't when the invasion\noccurred.\n  Just with our help through materiels, they have held off Russia for 3\nyears. Putin probably understood at some point that he wasn't going to\nbe able to win it through conventional tactics. So what does he go to?\nTerrorist tactics--the same sort of tactics he uses in Africa with\nmercenaries, terrorizing populations, indiscriminately killing people.\nThat is what Vladimir Putin does every single day, 24/7, 365 around the\nglobe.\n  Now let's get back to Ukraine. He decides to allow, under orders,\nRussia military to go into a community of about 200,000 people. That is\nroughly the size of the community I live in North Carolina, just north\nof Charlotte. Imagine what they are doing. They are going through the\ncity and indiscriminately, when somebody walks past them, shooting\nthem, sometimes with 50-caliber weapons and tank armor, murdering them,\nstacking them up in mass graves.\n  I went to this site. I saw it firsthand. This is how he is trying to\nwin the war because he can't win the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian\npeople. He destroyed the hopes and dreams of anybody who has lived in\nthe Soviet era. He wants that to reemerge. He is willing to do\nanything, including terrorizing innocent civilians to break their will.\n\n  But, thank God, the Ukrainian people are the brave people that they\nare because this hardened them. This made them go onto a battlefield\nand live in trenches 24 hours a day repulsing the Russian invasion.\n  There is no moral person on this planet who can consider Putin to\nhave a legitimate reason to affect this sort of carnage. And I saw it\nfirsthand. I will never be able to forget it. And what the American\npeople and the world population will never be able to forget either is\nthe aftermath of appeasing Vladimir Putin.\n  Ladies and gentlemen, China is already helping Russia. North Korea\nhas sent thousands of troops. And North Korea doesn't really care about\nlife. They have allowed 4,000 to 5,000 of their soldiers to die on the\nbattlefield within 6 weeks of getting on the ground. They are throwing\nbody after body trying to kill and break the will of the Ukrainian\npeople. It is just unacceptable.\n  Look, I am a Republican. I support President Trump, and I believe\nthat most of his policies on national security are right. I believe his\ninstincts\n\n[[Page S1085]]\n\nare pretty good. But what I am telling you, whoever believes that there\nis any space for Vladimir Putin and the future of a stable globe better\ngo to Ukraine; they better go to Europe; they better invest the time to\nunderstand that this man is a cancer and the greatest threat to\ndemocracy in my lifetime. And it will be a cancer that spreads into the\nSouth China Sea, into Taiwan, and metastasize across the globe.\n  Ladies and gentlemen, when I tell you that Vladimir Putin is a liar,\na murderer, and a man responsible for ordering the systematic torture,\nkidnapping, and rape of innocent civilians, believe me because the\nevidence is a mile high.\n  So for those of us who have invested the time to understand this,\nbelieve me when I tell you this is important to every single one of\nyou. If you believe that Ukraine is a country an ocean away and not\nrelevant to our national security, think again. The world is small. The\nworld is watching. The strength of our alliances are on the line and\nthe future of democracy in the world is on the line if we do anything\nless than defeat Vladimir Putin.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Idaho.\n\n                         Budget Reconciliation\n\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today we are debating the narrow Senate\nfiscal year 2025 budget resolution that fulfills promises to secure\nAmerica's borders, our national defense, and unleash our energy\npotential and finally start to get our fiscal house in order.\n  In the near future, I expect us to move forward with a budget\nresolution that allows us to prevent more than a $4 trillion tax hike\non American households, the largest tax hike in the history of America.\nThat will be felt by virtually every American if tax cuts expire at the\nend of this year.\n  Because the other side has filed a litany of tax amendments that\nrehash various false narratives and each side will only have 1 minute\nto debate, I am going to spend a little time right now explaining why\nwe can't afford a $4 trillion-plus tax increase, the positive impact\nthat the Trump tax cuts had on the economy, and some of the key\nprovisions that expire at the end of the year.\n  At the end of this year, many key provisions of President Trump's\n2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire, triggering an over $4\ntrillion tax hike on American families and businesses. While taxes will\nincrease on Americans of all income levels, the majority of this tax\nhike, about $2.6 trillion of it, will fall on those making less than\n$400,000 per year. An average family of four making about $80,000 a\nyear will see a $1,700 tax hike in 2016. Another $600 billion-plus will\nhit millions of small business owners who could see Federal tax rates\nskyrocket up to 43.4 percent. Tens of millions of families will see\ntheir Child Tax Credit cut in half from $2,000 to $1,000. The list goes\non.\n  But, first, I will talk about what the Trump tax cuts actually did\nand why failing to extend key provisions would be economically\ndevastating for millions of hard-working taxpayers.\n  So what did the Trump tax cuts do? There has been a lot of talk\nrecently about how extending these tax cuts are for billionaires and\ncorporations, but the facts actually show otherwise. The 2017 tax bill\nincreased the take-home pay and powered a growing economy. Individuals\nacross all income brackets received a tax cut, not just--as opponents\nsuggest--for the uberwealthy.\n  In fact, the Trump tax cuts made the Tax Code more progressive,\nmeaning the highest income earners now pay a greater share of all\nincome taxes than they did before 2017. The majority of benefits\naccrued to the working middle-class families of America. Between the\nbill's passage in 2017 and 2021, the bottom 50 percent of earners\nreceived the largest reduction in average tax rates at 17.3 percent.\n  In addition to lowering tax rates across the board, the Trump tax\ncuts doubled the standard deduction and the Child Tax Credit and\nprovided tax relief to America's entrepreneurs and small businesses.\n  The effect of pro-growth tax reform was immediate. Not only did\ntaxpayers get to keep more of their hard-earned money, but a growing\neconomy helped a median household income reach all-time highs. The\nlabor market improved; workers saw wage growth; and the unemployment\nrate fell dramatically to 3.5 percent--the lowest in 50 years; and the\nlowest income workers experienced the largest wage growth. Corporate\ninversions became a thing of the past, and America became the place do\nbusiness. All Americans reaped the benefits of a booming economy.\n\n  Extending this current, proven tax policy and building on it is the\nbest way to restore economic prosperity and opportunity for working\nfamilies, many of whom are still struggling to recover from the\nhistoric inflation of the last 4 years. As American families contend\nwith increasing costs of everyday living, the last thing they need is\nanother massive tax hike on top of that inflation. Failure is simply\nnot an option.\n  What happens if the Trump tax cuts expire? As I have said, if we do\nnot extend these tax policies, Americans will be hit with an over $4\ntrillion tax increase. More than $2.6 trillion of that tax increase\nwill fall on households earning less than $400,000 per year. An average\nfamily of four making $80,000 will be saddled with a $1,700 tax\nincrease. This is the equivalent of 6 to 8 weeks' worth of groceries\nfor a family of four. Tens of millions of families will see their child\ntax credit cut in half to $1,000, and 90 percent of taxpayers would see\ntheir standard deduction cut in half.\n  Owners of over 20 million small businesses will face a massive tax\nhike, with taxes up to 43.4 percent, and 7 million taxpayers will be\nimpacted by the alternative minimum tax, up from just 200,000 taxpayers\ncurrently. Many more small businesses and farms will have their death\ntax exemption cut in half. The National Association of Manufacturers\nrecently highlighted that, if we allow the tax cuts to expire, 6\nmillion jobs will be at risk; $540 billion in employee compensation\nwill be lost; and the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by\n$1.1 trillion.\n  The bottom line: While we aren't considering tax policy as a part of\nthis reconciliation package, it is important to set the record straight\nas to what is at stake in the upcoming tax debate. The stakes couldn't\nbe higher. You are going to hear tonight dozens and dozens of tax\namendments being brought. We are going to respond to each of those by\nexplaining that that debate is not this amendment.\n  This budget that we are debating today is on the border, on our\nnational defense, and on increasing our oil and gas production to\nstrengthen our economy. That is why the Senate and House Republicans\nare working together to act as quickly as possible to make these tax\ncuts permanent--but that will be in the next step--to prevent a massive\ntax hike and to provide certainty and relief to families and businesses\nacross this Nation.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.\n  Mr. KING. Mr. President, the news is coming so hard and fast these\ndays that it is hard to sort it all out. Every day seems to be\nsomething new that captures our attention, our concern, our interest.\n  What I would like to do today is to try to put some of it in\nperspective as to what is going on in our governing of this country. I\ndon't believe what I am going to be talking about today is partisan. It\nshould not be partisan because what I am really talking about is\ncompetent government and constitutional government--really, two\ncategories: competent government and constitutional government. That\nshould not be a controversial issue. Neither of those is something we\nshould be arguing about. It is what we have a responsibility to carry\nthrough in terms of our jobs here in the U.S. Senate. So, of the two\ncategories I want to talk about, my headings are ``thoughtless'' and\n``dangerous.''\n  First, I want to talk about ``thoughtless.''\n  The hiring freeze. A hiring freeze can be an effective tool if it is\nused thoughtfully and systematically, but to do it across the board,\nwithout a process for exceptions that is built into it, you end up with\nall kinds of unintended and negative consequences with firefighters,\nparks, losses elsewhere by attrition. There should be a systematic\nexemption process. Now it is haphazard and random.\n  Park seasonal employees first were under the hiring freeze; now they\nare\n\n[[Page S1086]]\n\nnot. It is sort of like: Oh. Oh, never mind. We are going to be OK with\npark seasonal employees.\n  VA frontline health workers were first subject to the hiring freeze.\nThen people said: Oh. Well, we didn't mean doctors and nurses, so that\nis OK. You can hire them.\n  My point is, it is not a rational process. It is ready, fire, aim.\nLiterally, ready, fire, aim is what we are talking about, and people\naren't doing this in a thoughtful and systematic way.\n  By the way, the difference between frontline deliverers of care at\nthe VA and the people who answer the phones who are categorized as\nbureaucrats--I don't think there is a stark difference there. If you\nare a veteran and are seeking care and an appointment at a VA health\nfacility and nobody answers the phone, that is a denial of benefits.\nThat is a denial of benefits just as if they had closed the door in\nyour face. That is what we are talking about--weakening the systems\nthat are serving our public.\n  So the hiring freeze: It is possible to do a hiring freeze. When I\nwas the Governor of Maine, I instituted a hiring freeze, but we did it\nin a systematic and thoughtful way. We had a process for dealing with\nexemptions and without destroying the morale and throwing the entire\noperation of government into chaos.\n  By the way, why do we have the government? To serve the people. To\nserve the people.\n  So let's talk about the next step--the firings. The famous ``Fork in\nthe Road'' letter is a perfect example of a thoughtless way to approach\na problem.\n  The letter went to everybody. The letter wasn't selective. It went to\neverybody--all civilians in the CIA, in the National Security Agency,\nin the Defense Department, and also, of course, to all the other\ncivilian Agencies, but it wasn't targeted in any way. It was, ``If you\nwant to leave Federal service, we will pay you through September,'' but\nit hit everybody. Again, it is not a rational or thoughtful way to trim\nthe Federal workforce.\n  You should be talking about, Where are we over? Do we have too many\npeople? Do we have overstock in terms of public servants, and where do\nwe need more, for example. Instead, it went to everybody. By\ndefinition, that is not a rational process. Let me just put this in\nperspective by the way.\n  In the ``Fork in the Road'' letter, the estimate, as of today, is\nthat 75,000 people have taken that option and left. I suppose the\npeople who are behind this thing think that that is a good victory. The\ndollars saved to the Treasury from those 75,000 people represent one-\ntenth of 1 percent of the Federal budget. So the people who are saying\nthat we are cutting the budget; we are cutting; we are saving; we are\nsaving the taxpayers' money, it is one-tenth of 1 percent. Given the\nchaos and the uncertainty and the deletion of services to our American\npeople, I would argue that is not worth it--one-tenth of 1 percent.\nEveryone got these letters. People are being fired now in the CIA, the\nFBI, the VA.\n\n  On this letter, what if only the best people take the option to\nleave? Then you will have really shot yourself in the foot. You will\nhave encouraged people who were going to retire anyway or who could get\na better job in the private sector. So it is almost--it is an anti-\nintelligent way to handle this.\n  Then you have got situations like at the Department of Energy. In the\nfirst weekend, they fired 350 people in the National Nuclear Security\nAdministration. Of the people who handle nuclear materials and are\nresponsible for our nuclear stockpile, they fired almost--I think it\nwas--something like 20 percent of the personnel. Then, 3 or 4 days\nlater, they realized: Uh-oh. That was a mistake. So now they are trying\nto bring these people back.\n  The point I am making is, a good, solid, thoughtful process wouldn't\nhave made a mistake like that. They would have realized from the outset\nthat these are jobs that we aren't going to be firing, that we aren't\ngoing to be eliminating. It seems to be based on some kind of quota. I\ndon't know what it is.\n  OK. So now we are seeing everybody is being fired who is on\nprobation, probationary people--people who have worked for the\ngovernment for less than a year or two. OK. Again, that is arbitrary.\nBeing on probation doesn't mean you are an effective employee or you\nare not an effective employee. You could be one of the best employees\nin the whole Federal Government, and you have just come on, and yet you\nare going to be fired. It has nothing to do with the productivity or\nskill of the worker. It has nothing to do with the importance of the\nposition. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the Agency in\nquestion that is serving the people of Maine. If you are probationary,\nyou are gone.\n  Here is another thing about probation: It turns out, in the Federal\nGovernment, if you are promoted, you are on probation in the new\nposition. You may have worked for the Department for 5 or 10 years. You\nare promoted. You are on probation. You are fired. Even though you have\n5 or 10 years of experience--you are capable; you are doing a good\njob--there was no effort that I can see. People did get these\nridiculous letters saying: Your performance has not been adequate.\nThere was no basis for those letters. It was arbitrary--arbitrary.\n  Remember, I said my categories are ``thoughtless'' and ``dangerous.''\nThis is thoughtless: probation.\n  Oh, by the way, about 30 percent of the Federal workforce are\nveterans. Now, we don't know the exact figures. That is one of the\nproblems. We have no transparency about what is going on here and who\nis actually being let go and who isn't, but a reasonable extrapolation\nis 30 percent of the people being fired are veterans--people who put\ntheir lives on the line for this country. Then they went into public\nservice, and they are being fired. That is outrageous.\n  Again, was no one thinking about this? A thousand were fired at the\nVA just a couple of days ago.\n  We learned that people supporting the VA crisis line were fired. What\ngenius thought that was a good idea?\n  Last Friday, immigration judges were fired. We are talking about\nimmigration and the border and the control of immigration, and we are\nfiring immigration judges? What possible sense does that make?\n  Here is one: We have had, I think, three serious aircraft incidents\nin the last month, and they just fired, I think, 300 people at the\nFAA--great--including people who are in the business of maintaining the\nsystems that keep our airplanes safe. In the wake of 3 serious airplane\ncrashes, including 1 here in Washington that killed 67 people, we are\nfiring people at the FAA? Give me a break. What kind of sense does that\nmake? What kind of service is that to the people of the United States?\n  Here is one that is not life or death, but it is the National Park\nService. A thousand people were fired last weekend at the National Park\nService. I suspect they were probationary. That means, OK, they had\nonly been there a year or two, but that doesn't mean they weren't in\njobs that weren't important. The headline in this morning's paper:\n``Chaos at the National Parks.'' The lines are twice as long as they\nnormally are, and if there is chaos at the National Parks in February,\nLord knows what it is going to be in June or July in Yosemite and at\nthe Grand Canyon and in Acadia, which is in my State of Maine.\n  Here is a beauty: Some of these people who are being fired are the\npeople who collect fees at the park. So, to save a buck, we are going\nto lose 5 bucks from fees not being collected. Genius. Come on. Five\npercent of the workforce at the National Park Service is being fired.\n  I can tell you I am the cochair of the National Park Subcommittee of\nthe Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We need more people at\nthe national parks, not less. We have had a staffing shortage going\nback a half a dozen or 10 years, where visitation is way up, and staff\nis flat or declining. Now it is really declining. This is a direct,\nhands-on experience for the American people.\n  Gettysburg: They have been laying off people at the battlefield. Last\nnight, apparently, something called the Presidential Management Fellows\nProgram--a training program that is decades old that brings talented\npeople into the Federal Government--was eliminated. No explanation. No\nrationale. Eliminated.\n\n[[Page S1087]]\n\n  OK. That is the thoughtless part. And let me give you a little\npersonal experience. When I was elected Governor of Maine, we had a\nserious budget deficit. We were in the middle of a recession. So we\nwent through a process very similar to the impetus for what is going on\nnow. We looked at the entire workforce of the State of Maine, but we\ndid it in a thoughtful and transparent way. We developed a task force\nthat included private citizens, legislators, and members of the\nadministration, and we took 8 months--8 months, not 8 weeks--and we\nlooked at the entire structure of the State of Maine government and\nreduced our workforce by about 10 percent--a significant reduction, but\nwe did it in a thoughtful way and in a way that made sense in terms of\nthe ongoing service to the people of Maine.\n  So it can be done, and I am not unsympathetic with the idea of making\nthings more efficient and even possibly downsizing the government where\nit is called for and where additional people aren't necessary. So I am\nnot here to say we shouldn't be looking for efficiency and saying\neverything in the Federal Government is perfect. I don't believe that\nfor a minute. But I think, if we are going to take on this exercise, it\nought to be done in a sensible way by people who know what they are\ndoing.\n  That brings me to DOGE. I don't know what they are doing. Nobody\ndoes. I don't know who these 25-year-olds are that are in the IRS,\nrummaging around in the IRS IT system or--we learned in the last couple\nof days--Social Security. What are they doing? Who are they? What are\ntheir qualifications? Do they have security clearances? Do they have\nconflicts of interest?\n  All of the rules that are designed to protect us from people making\narbitrary decisions that aren't accountable--you talk about bureaucrats\nbeing unaccountable; these are the ultimate unaccountable people. We\ndon't know what their relationship is to the Federal Government, what\nauthority they have, under what law are they operating. It is pretty\nclear from mistakes like firing 350 people at the Nuclear Security\nAgency--it is pretty clear they don't know what they are doing, and\nthey are firing people whom we need. OK. That is the thoughtless part,\nand it is inexcusable.\n  That is just pure efficiency of government, of doing the right thing,\nand it can be done, but these people aren't doing it.\n  The second part of what is going on is the dangerous part, and this\nis where I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who\nare standing by and watching the structure of our government be\nattacked with no response--elimination of entire congressionally\ncreated Agencies.\n  USAID was established by statute, and over a weekend, these people\nfired everybody, closed the Agency, took the name off the door, and\nthrew the rest of the world into chaos where these people were working\non important projects all over the world that were part of our outreach\nto the world.\n  And, you know what, as soon as we went out of business at AID, China\nis right in the market. It is like walking away from engagement with\nthe world. It couldn't be a more self-defeating piece of work.\n  By the way, it is a tiny part of the Federal budget.\n  James Mattis famously said when he was a general: If you cut the\nforeign aid budget, you are going to have to buy me more bullets.\n  Foreign aid is part of the national security of this country, and to\ndemolish this Agency without any input from Congress, without any\nrelationship to the Foreign Affairs Committee or anybody else up here\nin Congress, is grossly unconstitutional. It is grossly\nunconstitutional.\n  Here is the problem: This isn't just a battle between the Senate and\nthe House and the President and they are fighting about powers. No. The\nreason the Framers designed our Constitution the way they did was that\nthey were afraid of concentrated power. They had just fought a brutal\n8-year war with a King. They didn't want a King. They wanted a\nconstitutional republic where power was divided between the Congress\nand the President and the courts.\n  We are collapsing that structure. And the structure wasn't there for\nfun. It wasn't there because, hey, we are just going to design this\ncomplicated system. It was there to protect our freedom because the\npeople who wrote our Constitution understood human nature, and they\nunderstood a very important thousand-year-old principle: Power\ncorrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.\n  So the whole idea was to divide power. To the extent we allow this\nassault on our Constitution, this collapsing and excessive power being\ngranted to the Executive to ignore the laws passed by Congress--and, by\nthe way, appropriations bills are laws passed by Congress, which the\nadministration is also ignoring by freezing funding for programs\nauthorized and funded by Congress. To the extent we do that, we are not\nonly making a mistake now, but we are altering the essential structure\nof our Constitution that is there for a reason, that is there to\nprotect our freedom.\n  The people who are cheering this on, I fear, in a reasonably short\nperiod of time, are going to say: Where did this go? How did this\nhappen? How did we make our President into a monarch? How did this\nhappen?\n  How it happened is we gave it up.\n  James Madison thought we would fight for our power--but no. Right\nnow, we are just sitting back and watching it happen.\n  Article II of the Constitution--the President said: Oh, article II\ngives me a lot of power.\n  No, it doesn't. It makes the President Commander in Chief; that is\ntrue. But here is the key sentence in article II of the Constitution,\nwhich defines a President's power. The key sentence is not the power of\nthe President. The responsibility of the President is to ``take care\nthat the laws be faithfully executed''--not write the laws, not deny\nthe laws, not ignore the laws, not pick which laws he or she likes. To\n``take care that the laws be faithfully executed''--that is the\nresponsibility of the President. Right now, those laws are being\nignored.\n  Impoundment. Impoundment. The President is trying to say: Congress\nappropriated this money with an appropriation bill signed by the\nPresident, but I am not going to spend it because I don't like it. I\ndon't like that purpose, whatever it is.\n  I am sorry. It is absolutely straight-up unconstitutional, and it is\nillegal. President Nixon tried to do that in 1973, and the Congress\nvirtually unanimously passed the Impoundment Control Act, which said:\nNo, Presidents can't do that; they can't ignore the will of Congress\nbecause article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the power of\nthe purse.\n  We are giving it away this week. We are standing by and watching it,\nwatching the essential power of this body evaporate--not evaporate--\nmigrate down the street to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The power was\ndivided for a reason.\n\n  There is some criticism now in the press saying people are talking\nabout a constitutional crisis; they are crying wolf. No. This is a\nconstitutional crisis. It is the most serious assault on our\nConstitution in the history of this country. It is the most serious\nassault on the very structure of our Constitution, which is designed to\nprotect our freedoms and our liberty, in the history of this country.\n  It is a constitutional crisis, and I will tell you what makes it\nworse: The President and the Vice President are already hinting that\nthey are not going to obey decisions of the courts.\n  Many of my friends in this body say: Well, you know, it would be\nhard. We don't want to buck the President and everything. We are going\nto let the courts take care of this.\n  No. 1, that is a copout. It is our responsibility to protect the\nConstitution. That is what we swear to when we enter this body. But to\nstand back and say: Oh, we are going to watch all this happen, and the\ncourts are going to take care of it--that is an abdication of our\nresponsibility.\n  By the way, if you look at history, yes, it is true Presidents have\ngained power. In my reading of history, usually it wasn't because\nPresidents usurped power but because the Congress abdicated it. We\nhaven't declared war, for example, since 1942, and yet that is a clear\nresponsibility of Congress. And we sure have been in some scrapes since\n1942. We have abdicated that power. And we are now in the process of\nabdicating the power to control the appropriations process.\n\n[[Page S1088]]\n\n  I mentioned about DOGE: no authority, no accountability, no\ntransparency. We literally don't know what they are doing. We can't\nfind out what they are doing.\n  Then, just this week, the destruction of the independent Agencies\ncreated by Congress. They were created as independent Agencies for a\nreason--because they didn't want them to be dominated by the\nvicissitudes of politics.\n  The President gets to appoint members of the board, and they are very\ncarefully balanced--not firing someone at the National Labor Relations\nBoard so there is no quorum so they can't act. That is a direct\nviolation of congressionally established policy.\n  These independent Agencies were created for a reason.\n  Oh, I forgot to mention the illegal firing of inspectors general. The\nSenator from Iowa is a champion of inspectors general. In the first few\ndays, something like 18 inspectors general were fired, completely\ncontrary to the law. The law is the Congress must be given 30 days'\nnotice of the firing of an inspector general and reasons therefor. Not\ndone. Not a peep.\n  What is it going to take for us to wake up--when I say ``us,'' I mean\nthis entire body--to wake up to what is going on here? Is it going to\nbe too late? Is it going to be when the President has accreted all this\npower and the Congress is an afterthought? What is it going to take?\nThe offenses keep piling up.\n  As I said, leaving it to the courts, No. 1, is a copout. No. 2, when\nthe Vice President said something--I can't remember exactly what he\nsaid--but why should we--the courts should not have the power to do\nthis. And, of course, the President, over the weekend, famously quoted\nNapoleon: When you are saving your country, you don't have to obey any\nlaw.\n  Wow. A President of the United States quoting Napoleon about not\nhaving to obey the law.\n  So I intended to talk about Ukraine, but Senator Tillis and Senator\nShaheen did it so articulately, I think I will let that pass except to\nsay that it is shameful that we have suddenly pivoted from the support\nof a democracy that was grossly and illegally invaded--from the support\nof that country to the support of a murderous dictator.\n  I heard something about Zelenskyy is a dictator. The only dictator in\nthis game is Vladimir Putin. He is the dictator. And to argue that\nsomehow Ukraine started the war--what universe is somebody in that\nwould say something like that?\n  Again, I won't pursue, but I can tell you, Putin is happy, Xi Jinping\nis happy, Iran is happy, and North Korea is happy. They love what is\ngoing on, to see us retreating from the world, whether it is AID or\nUkraine. They love to see us retreating from the world, looking weak\nand looking unreliable.\n  Finally, on this point, we seem to be systematically alienating our\nallies. I have been on Armed Services now for 12 years, and I have\nlearned that the key asymmetric advantage that this country has in the\nworld is allies. China has customers; we have allies. Well, we are\ngiving that away. If I wasn't on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I would\nuse a slightly different term. But we are giving away our asymmetric\nadvantage in the world by what looks like systematically alienating our\nallies, whether it is threats of tariffs or speeches in Europe telling\nthem what their problems are, basically saying we are going to abandon\nEurope.\n  What a great idea: Abandon Europe at a time when there is a murderous\ndictator who has his eyes on the Baltics, on Poland, and who has said\nhe would like to reestablish the Soviet empire. The worst possible\ngeopolitical thing that we could do would be to abandon Ukraine.\n  So this is a constitutional crisis, and we have to respond to it. And\nI am just waiting for this whole body to stand up and say: No, no. We\ndon't do it this way. We don't do it this way. We do things\nconstitutionally.\n  Yes, it is more cumbersome. It is slower. That is what the Framers\nintended. They didn't intend to have an efficient dictatorship, and\nthat is what we are headed for. This is a very dangerous moment. We\nhave to wake up, protect this institution, but much more importantly,\nprotect the people of the United States of America.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.\n  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support the budget resolution\nthat is before the U.S. Senate. Speaking to that, I want to remind\npeople of some history.\n  These famous words came from Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of\nStaff. It dates from about 2008. He famously said:\n\n       You never want a serious crisis to go away.\n\n  There is no statement that better encapsulates the mindset of the\nprevious administration. We all know Americans are struggling to cope\nwith economic and social disruption still carrying on from the\npandemic. The Biden administration saw a real opportunity, an\nopportunity to permanently increase the size and scope of government.\n  They said that they wanted to transform America. I hope everybody on\nmy side of the aisle wants to preserve America. In my view, it makes\nsense, in times of national emergency, for government to take steps to\nhelp individuals, families, and small businesses weather that storm.\n  But once the crisis subsides, so should the programs and spending\nenacted in response. Yet here we are in 2025, and Federal spending, as\na share of the economy, remains at levels never seen outside of war or\nnational emergency like recessions or depressions.\n  In 2019, before the pandemic, the total Federal spending totaled\n$4.45 trillion. In 2024, the Federal Government spent over $2 trillion\nmore. So that is a total of $6.75 trillion, a relative increase of over\n50 percent.\n  We must begin to put spending back on a path of normalcy, and that is\nwhy we are having this debate that we call the budget resolution. The\npath to normalcy is a spending path that accounts for the historic\ninflation of the past 4 years as well as population growth.\n  Now, there are a lot of people in this body that would say that\nspending that much is still too much, but I think it fits in with the\nprinciple of the 1974 budget resolution.\n  Once inflation and population growth are factored in, Federal\nspending in 2024 remained roughly $1 trillion above prepandemic levels.\nIf Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt are set to the\nside, Federal spending was still over half a trillion dollars above\n2019 levels. I hope you will study the chart here that shows what I\njust told you.\n  Unless we have a course correction, our national debt will set a new\nrecord as a share of our economy in 2028. That is eclipsing the\nprevious high-water mark set in the wake of World War II. You can see\nthat here in the period of time where it was at World War II.\n  As another Democrat said, elections have consequences. So as a part\nof the November mandate, President Trump is looking for ways to reduce\nwasteful government spending. Through this budget resolution before the\nSenate now, we plan to help in that process.\n  But, in fact, that power should rest here. The President shouldn't\nhave to do it. But it is Congress that has the power of the purse, and\nwe will have to do the heavy lifting. Getting out of the fiscal hole\nthat we dug for ourselves requires that we first stop digging.\n  The budget that we are debating this week takes that first step, and\nsome people would say it is too small of a first step. Any new spending\nwill have to be accomplished by reductions in spending elsewhere. I\nlook forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on a return to\nfiscal sanity, and that fiscal sanity is the prepandemic level of\nspending increased only by inflation and population growth.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.\n  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the American people are being robbed in\nbroad daylight. Big Oil is cashing in on their billion-dollar deal with\nDonald Trump from his campaign; the $1 billion to help Trump win. And\nin return, he will rig the rules of the game in line with the pockets\nof the oil, gas, and coal industry 10 times over.\n  So let's call Trump's energy agenda what it really is: Oil above all,\nnot all of the above. Trump's billionaire friends promised to raise\ntens of millions of dollars; and, in return, he promised he would\ndeliver policies that\n\n[[Page S1089]]\n\nwill force working families to pay more, inhale more toxic air, and\nreduce their kids' chances for a healthier future.\n  Especially as the climate crisis continues to turbocharge extreme\nweather--costing billions in damages, sky-high energy bills--we know\nthat working families don't have any more to give to the oil, gas, and\ncoal industries.\n  Gas prices are up. Electricity bills are up. Home heating costs are\nup. And yet Donald Trump is going after the programs, the Agencies, and\nthe workers that help keep our air and water clean and create jobs.\n  Meanwhile, Big Oil is raking in record profits, more than $172\nbillion in profits in 2023 alone. This administration isn't governing,\nit is groveling to Big Oil and Big Gas and Big Coal and the entire\nfossil fuel industry. Every dollar that goes into a billionaire's\npocket is a dollar taken out of a working family's budget--money that\nshould go toward food, rent, and education.\n  It is robbery in broad daylight from working families to create tax\nbreaks for billionaires, and the Trump administration is trying to\ncarry out their single biggest heist right now: attempting to illegally\nseize $20 billion from the congressionally authorized climate bank. As\nwe speak, they are trying to loot the climate bank.\n  This bank, formally called the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, is\nbased on my national climate bank legislation with Chris Van Hollen,\nand it is already at work for you, leveraging private dollars to cut\nenergy bills for families and small businesses, improve resiliency\nagainst climate change-fueled disasters, and create local economic\nopportunity.\n  Trump and Musk are trying to get their hands on this money--your\nmoney--through whatever means necessary, even if that meant forcing\nDenise Cheung, head of the criminal division of the DC U.S. Attorney's\nOffice, to say that there had been a crime committed in the climate\nbank, which then would allow Trump to reclaim all the money in the\nclimate bank.\n  What did Denise Cheung say? She said she could not find a crime. They\nsaid: You are going to find a crime. She said she could not find a\ncrime in the climate bank, and so she had to resign. She had to resign\nfrom being the head of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's\nOffice right here in Washington, DC, because she refused to follow the\norders of her supervisor who is getting instructions from the White\nHouse because that was the only way they could fulfill the promise to\noil, gas, and coal to kill the climate bank.\n  They wanted to freeze that money in the absence of any crimes, any\nwrongdoing, which--surprise--just happened this week. Just happened.\nTheir goal is to take money away from families, take money from clean\nenergy, take money from disadvantaged communities and give it to the\nfossil fuel companies and special interests.\n  So, yes, they want to raid Medicaid; they want to raid education\nprograms; they want to raid veterans' benefits. But also, for the oil,\ngas, and coal industry, they have got to kill the tax breaks for wind\nand solar; they have got to gut the climate bank, which is\nrevolutionizing the way in which we generate energy electricity in this\ncountry.\n  That is not powerful leadership; it is political plunder. And working\nfamilies are paying the price. Trump's farce of an energy emergency\ndeclaration creates a financial emergency for the American people.\nInstead of taking steps to lower energy costs for families, the Trump\nadministration is actively driving up your energy costs by pushing for\nour energy, American energy, to get shipped overseas for higher profits\nand tying our energy market to the volatility of the global energy\nmarketplace.\n  From late 2021 through 2022, surging exports of our energy from the\nUnited States, liquified natural gas cost Americans $111 billion in\nhigher energy prices for natural gas customers here in the United\nStates--consumers, homeowners, businesses. Why? Because Big Oil and Big\nGas want to export our energy out of our country, send it overseas\nbecause they get a bigger price on the open seas. That is what it is\nall about.\n  In a recent study, the Department of Energy found that it is\nextremely likely LNG exports will lead to more sticker shock for\nAmericans, an average increase of over $120 per year still coming--\nagain while oil executives, natural gas executives cash in on even\nbigger paydays. What is the Trump plan? Turn consumers in America\nupside down and shake money out of their pockets for profits for the\noil and gas industry.\n  What happens? Prices go higher for consumers here. That is how they\nmake their money. They are doing it hand in glove with the Trump\nadministration. This is not an energy emergency. This is a Trump energy\ntax on the American people, an energy tax, which, to be clear, is only\ngrowing in severity as Trump cuts off funding for clean energy\nprojects, fires hardworking government employees, imposes tariffs--all\nof which will make electricity even more expensive for American\nbusinesses, for American consumers.\n  It is a deliberate strategy to make sure working families stay\ndependent on a damaging fuel source that makes a handful of\nbillionaires richer and richer and richer by the day. But make no\nmistake, they are not attacking us, because they are winning.\n  The fossil fuel industry is backing Donald Trump because they know\nthey are losing. They are losing, despite Trump's attempts to kill the\ngreen revolution. The clean energy boom is happening all across our\ncountry.\n  The fossil fuel industry is terrified because they know that wind and\nsolar are the future.\n  Last year, get this number, are you ready? This is why they are\npetrified. This is why they are scared, 90 percent of all new\nelectricity generation capacity brought online in the United States was\nrenewable--10 percent natural gas, 90 percent renewable last year.\n  Why do they have to kill the tax breaks? Why do they have to kill the\nclimate bank? You do 90 percent renewables every year for the next 10\nyears, then it drives right at the heart of the business model of the\nnatural gas and coal and oil industries in our country.\n  That is why they need to loot the climate bank. That is why they need\nto kill the tax breaks for wind and solar, all-electric vehicles in our\ncountry. Onshore wind. Onshore wind and solar power were the cheapest\nmegawatts on the grid last year, 2024, from construction to operation.\n  And the Big Oil bosses know that if given the choice, Americans will\npick the cheapest, cleanest energy source every single time. So they\nare killing your choice. They are not letting you pick which energy\nsource you want.\n  Nearly 80 percent of clean energy investments from the Inflation\nReduction Act, also known as the biggest climate bill in world history,\nbut 80 percent of the energy investments have gone to Republican\ndistricts, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs just in 2\\1/2\\\nyears.\n  Think about that. Trump is actively working to destroy economic\ngrowth and jobs in the very places that got him elected. Eighty percent\nof the jobs are in red States. Think about that. But that is the\npayback to the oil, gas, and coal industry for raising the money for\nhim last year. We are talking about electricians installing solar\npanels, construction workers building wind turbines, engineers\ndesigning the next generation of battery storage. All of these are\ngood-paying, family-sustaining jobs that are helping to build America's\nfuture. And yet--and yet--Trump and his enablers want to tear it all\ndown just to keep their fossil fuel cronies happy, just to keep the\ngreenhouse gas emitters happy, just to make sure there is no\ncompetition.\n  They don't believe in competition. This should be Darwinian paranoia-\ninducing competition. What oil, gas, and coal has extracted from this\nadministration is killing the competition. It is killing them in the\nmarketplace.\n  Adam Smith was spinning in his grave thinking about this cut. He had\na big smile on his face last year, Adam Smith. The market is finally\nworking. We finally have incentives for the competition. But that had\nto be killed. That had to be killed.\n  And if that wasn't enough, Trump is attacking the National Oceanic\nand Atmospheric Administration, the Agency that warns and helps protect\nus against hurricanes and floods and wildfires.\n  Why? Because it gets in the way of his fossil fuel allies' ability to\npollute and to profit without consequence. Just last year, get this\nnumber, disasters supercharged by climate change\n\n[[Page S1090]]\n\ncost the United States more than $500 billion. Hurricanes Milton and\nHelene, they cost $300 billion--billion--in damage. The fires in L.A.,\n$200 billion. Three incidents, $500 billion worth of damage. Three.\nThat is all. Half of the defense budget of the United States.\n  What are they doing? They are taking down the defense in the future\nagainst superstorms. They are going to take it down. They are going to\nravage homeowners, businesses across our country. Insurance rates are\ngoing to skyrocket. It is going to have a devastating impact upon our\ncountry. We are not even through the month of February, and already in\nLos Angeles and other places, we can see the storms; we can see the\nfloods; we can see the damage.\n  So this is absolutely unbelievable what is happening. Families forced\nfrom their homes. Businesses wiped out. Entire communities devastated.\nAnd instead of preparing for the future, Trump is making sure it gets\nworse. Imagine, standing in the wreckage of a hurricane-ravaged\nneighborhood, with nothing but rubble left of your home, and knowing\nthat your President, right now, is actively choosing to make future\ndisasters worse and firing the workers that would help you rebuild.\nThat is the cruelty of his administration.\n  It has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil, gas, and coal\nindustry, giving them a permission slip to wreak havoc on every other\nAmerican. At every turn, this administration is picking fossil fuel\nbillionaires over working people, and they aren't even hiding it.\n  Since April of last year after Trump sat down with the Big Oil\nexecutives and asked for a billion-dollar campaign check, these\nexecutives' wealth has ballooned by more than $40 billion in 1 year,\n$40 billion more in the wealth of those individuals, while families\nacross the country wonder how they will pay their heating bills.\n  Trump's fossil fuel donors are making a fortune. And let's not forget\nthe bigger picture. Our global standing is on the line. While we stall\nand we let the fossil fuel industry dictate our energy policy, China is\nsurging ahead. China is saying: Thank you, Trump administration. Thank\nyou for letting us take over the renewable energy industry.\n  They are investing in clean energy, in electric vehicles, in battery\nstorage--in all the industries that will define the 21st century\neconomy. And what is Trump doing? Kneecapping our ability to compete.\nHe is locking us into outdated, expensive, and polluting energy\nsystems, while the rest of the world moves forward without us. You\ncan't be an isolationist when it comes to climate change; it is global\nwarming.\n  This isn't just about energy policy. This is about what kind of\ncountry we want to be. Will we be the leader or the laggard? Do we want\nto be a country that builds, innovates, and transforms, or do we want\nto be a country that clings to the past and knowingly raises costs on\nAmerican families that pollute the air we breathe in order to line the\npockets of the ultrawealthy? The choice is ours.\n  Trump and his fossil fuel friends want you to believe that you don't\nhave a choice; that you have to accept higher prices, dirtier air,\npolluted water, and an onslaught of hurricanes and fires brought on by\na worsening climate crisis that the President of the United States,\nDonald Trump, denies even exists, calling it a Chinese hoax. It is no\nhoax. Three events, $500 billion worth of damage, and I am not even\nmentioning all the other damage last year and early this year, but\nthere were.\n  People want lower bills, not higher profits for Exxon. Our\ncommunities deserve good-paying jobs, not another handout to Chevron.\nIt is not drill, baby, drill. It is plug in, baby, plug in. That is\nwhat this generation of young people want: plug into the electric\nrevolution, plug into the nonpolluting future.\n\n  We have a choice. We can fight for lower costs, good jobs, and a\nlivable future. We can invest in the industries of tomorrow instead of\ngetting locked into the polluting past. We can stop exporting American\nfossil fuels abroad and driving up our own prices for our own consumers\nhere in America. We can ban fossil fuel executives and lobbyists from\nbeing able to use our energy-related Agencies for their own personal\npocketbooks or, as I call for in my ``BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act,''\nthey can't work; they can't work for the Energy Department. They can't\nbe inside taking over the agenda. We can strengthen the low-income\nheating and cooling relief program so that the poorest Americans don't\nhave to put so much of their paycheck toward heating and cooling.\n  We can safeguard energy efficiency standards for appliances so that\npeople pay less on their bills. We can do that. We can remove the tax\nloopholes that prevent the oil and gas companies from paying their fair\nshare.\n  We are talking about tax breaks for oil companies that have been on\nthe books for 100 years. They call creating a climate bank socialism.\nWhat do you call 100 years of tax breaks for the oil, gas, and coal\nindustry? That is socialism. That is allowing for a noncompetitive\nmarketplace.\n  So the new technologies, the clean technologies, solar and wind,\nelectric battery technologies, they can't be deployed. We can remove\nthose tax breaks. That is what we should be debating here.\n  But at a minimum, we can't take away the competition. They are\nmonopolists. They are all oligopolists. That is all it is. They want to\nstifle new technology. They don't have any new ideas, except making\nthemselves rich.\n  If Republicans are here tonight looking for revenue to pay for the\nthings that they want to pay for, let's start with ending those tax\nbreaks now and having oil companies finally pay their fair share.\n  Ultimately, we can stand up to the corporate greed that is bleeding\nworking families dry and demand a future where energy policy serves the\npeople, not just the powerful. And that is exactly what we are going to\ndo because the clean energy revolution isn't just coming; it is already\nhere. And it is scaring the living daylights out of the oil, gas, and\ncoal industry. They are petrified.\n  It is happening in red States, 80 percent, and blue States. It is\nlowering costs, creating jobs, making communities stronger. No amount\nof corruption, no amount of grift, no amount of fossil fuel money is\ngoing to stop it, and we are not going to back down. And we will not\nallow the Trump administration to sell out the American people,\nespecially young people. We are not going to allow their future to get\nsold out. We are not going to surrender the way the oil, gas, and coal\nindustry wants us to surrender because this is not about the highest\nbidder who can loot the programs like the National Climate Bank to pay\nfor their billionaire tax breaks.\n  We will fight for the workers building America's clean energy future.\nWe will fight for all families, ensuring they have lower energy bills,\ncleaner air. And we will fight for a livable future, not just for\nourselves but for all coming children and grandchildren right now.\n  This is not just a political fight; it is a moral fight. This is\nabout justice. This is about fairness. This is about the very future of\nour country. We cannot back down now. This is the time. This is the\nplace. We must wage this battle on behalf of the coming generations or\nelse the devastation will become catastrophically unimaginable.\n  So let's have this fight this year about our future. I think that is\nthe least we owe to the young people in our country.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.\n\n                      Unanimous Consent Agreement\n\n  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have two unanimous consent requests. I\nask unanimous consent that for the duration of S. Con. Res. 7, the\nbudget resolution for fiscal year 2025, the majority and the Democratic\nmanagers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers'\ndesk, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit\ndocuments, and send email and other data communications from text\ndisplayed on a wireless personal assistance device and tablet devices.\n  I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be\npermitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution;\nfurther, that the staff be permitted to make technical\n\n[[Page S1091]]\n\nand conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with\namendments adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating\nthe associated change in the net interest function and incorporating\nthe effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for\nFederal revenue, the amount by which the Federal revenue should be\nchanged, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt\nand debt held by the public.\n  Further, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally\ndivided, prior to each vote during consideration of S. Con. Res. 7.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.\n\n                             S. Con. Res. 7\n\n  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the rhetoric of Donald Trump and Republicans\non the budget is all over the map. Here is what is important to know.\nRepublicans want $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, primarily for the richest\nAmericans, paid for with sharp cuts in programs that help average\nAmericans and the most vulnerable in our society.\n  Yesterday, I spoke on the floor about one of the most cynical parts\nof this resolution: gutting healthcare for children, seniors, and\nAmericans with disabilities through extreme cuts to Medicaid and the\nChildren's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.\n  Donald Trump said that Medicaid and Medicare would be off limits, but\nthe budgets put out by Republicans indicate something quite different.\n  During the debate on this budget, Republicans will have the\nopportunity to vote on amendments to show where they stand, and, more\nimportantly, who they stand with--everyday Americans or the roughly 750\nbillionaires in the United States. That is the stakes--hundreds of\nmillions of nurses, firefighters, office workers, systems\nadministrators, salespeople, and their children versus the interests of\nroughly 750 people whose wealth grows by millions every single day.\n  Ripping health coverage away from Americans may be the worst part of\nthis budget, but it is far from the only bad provision. Instead, this\nbudget is part of a broader decision by President Trump and\ncongressional Republicans to force American families to pay more for\nfood, healthcare, and education--again, all so the wealthiest Americans\ncan get a huge tax break.\n  The ``big, beautiful bill'' that Donald Trump favors is expected to\ngut Medicaid by at least $880 billion dollars. The cuts would be\ndevastating for the 80 million Americans who rely on Medicaid and CHIP,\nwho are almost entirely children, seniors, people with disabilities,\nand working men and women who depend upon Medicaid protection. Forcing\nstruggling Americans to pay more for health insurance or to lose health\ncoverage altogether is heartless policy and a slap in the face to the\nmillions of families who are struggling to make ends meet.\n  And yet Medicaid is not the only target in this resolution. Food for\nthe dinner table is also on the chopping block with cuts of reportedly\nat least $230 billion to SNAP. Each of us has seen news reports about\nthe long lines at food pantries in our States. Who hasn't heard that\nthe price of eggs is up 15 percent in the last month alone? Who doesn't\nremember, also, the campaign promise of Donald Trump to bring grocery\nprices down on the first day of his term?\n  Yet here we are with a Trump-backed bill that makes groceries even\nmore expensive for 42 million Americans who qualify for SNAP. Gutting\nthis program, the SNAP program, doesn't lower prices, but it sure will\nincrease the problem of hunger in the richest country in the world.\n  Put simply, President Trump's ``big, beautiful bill'' is forcing\nvulnerable American families to pay more for food and healthcare. Such\npolicies directly contradict the President's campaign promise that\n``starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America\naffordable again.\n  Republicans can't dodge the truth: $880 billion in Medicaid cuts and\n$230 billion in SNAP cuts will mean more kids go hungry, more seniors\ncan't afford lifesaving treatment, and more households are forced into\npoverty.\n  The budget resolution's cost-raising trifecta ends with higher\neducation costs. Instead of making college more affordable and offering\nyoung Americans more pathways to prosperity, this Republican budget\nwill increase the cost of student loans and cut other programs that\nhelp Americans offset the costs of education.\n  Education cuts come at, perhaps, the worst time. Most jobs that\nprovide living wages require some postsecondary education or training.\nA college education, which has long been a ticket to the middle class,\nis now too expensive for too many families. Meanwhile, the main source\nof government higher education aid for low- and moderate-income\nfamilies, the Pell grant, has lost most of its purchasing power. At its\npeak in 1975 and 1976, the Pell grant--named after my predecessor,\nSenator Claiborne Pell--covered more than 75 percent of the cost of\nattendance at a public 4-year college. Today, it covers less than 30\npercent.\n  Unsurprisingly, over 40 million Americans now have student loan debt,\nwhich prevents them, in many cases, from purchasing a home or moving to\nareas where they might be able to use their talents more effectively,\nand has many other consequences.\n  Forcing Americans to pay even more for college makes higher education\nless attainable, weakens our labor force, and will have long-term\nrepercussions for American families, American prosperity, and American\nsecurity.\n  Now, many Americans may be wondering: What is the point of all of\nthese cuts?\n  It is not about reforming programs. There has been no serious cost-\nbenefit analysis of any of these programs. All they have looked at is,\nWhat does it cost, and how can we use that money to fund taxes?\n  That is not government reform. That is not wise government. That is\njust ripping off most Americans to satisfy 750 billionaires.\n  And it is not even about reducing the deficit. As I said, it is just\nabout unlocking a fast-track way to reward the wealthiest Americans--\nsome of whom are now in the Trump administration.\n  Republicans have been pretty clear. The central purpose of their\nbudget is to permanently extend the failed 2017 Trump tax bill, which\nwas an unpopular giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. Nearly half of\nthe benefits from extending the Trump tax bill will flow just to the\nrichest Americans, those earning $450,000 or more each year.\n  President Trump promised on the campaign trail that ``starting on day\none, we will end inflation and make America affordable again.'' But we\nare now on day 32, and costs have not come down. In fact, inflation hit\n3 percent for the first time in months this January, and the President\ntook no action while egg prices hit record highs--a particular point of\npain for many families.\n  And just like this budget resolution, the President has been intent\non forcing families to pay more, not less, for everyday goods. In just\n1 month, the President has implemented or threatened tariff taxes on\nnearly every item imaginable.\n  Nonpartisan experts are clear: These tariff taxes will not ``make\nAmerica affordable again.'' The Peterson Institute projects the tariff\ntaxes on Canada, Mexico, and China alone would cost U.S. households\n$1,200 a year--a tariff tax. Yale researchers have found the\nPresident's threat to place reciprocal tariffs on our trading partners\nwould cost families $2,600. Analysts at the investment bank Jefferies\nprojects car prices will jump by $2,700 under the President's Canada\nand Mexico tariffs, while the National Association of Home Builders\nfound President Trump's lumber tariffs during his first term--which he\npromised to raise again--in his first term, raised housing prices by\n$9,000, and he still wants to do it again.\n  We have also heard a lot about Mr. Musk's DOGE and fraud, waste, and\nabuse, but that operation doesn't seem to be about preventing fraud,\nwaste, and abuse, or lowering costs.\n  By the way, if you were really interested in eliminating waste,\nfraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, why would you fire all the\ninspectors general? They are independent agents who are charged\nspecifically to root out waste and corruption in the Federal\n\n[[Page S1092]]\n\nGovernment. President Trump did that. So this is not about getting rid\nof waste or anything else. Again, it is finding trillions of dollars to\ngive away to rich Americans.\n  In fact, the other aspect of DOGE is just to create mayhem to impact\nso much of government: firing responsible staffers who are handling key\nissues, weapons--nuclear weapons.\n  I was in the airport, on Monday evening, flying down from Providence,\nand a young lady came up to me and said she was fired a few days ago\nfrom the National Nuclear Security Administration because she was a\nprobationary hire. But guess what. When they discovered that they could\nnot protect nuclear weapons--not do sensitive maintenance on them so\nthat they would be ready for deterrence--she was suddenly called back.\nNot very smart.\n  DOGE is also trying to fire researchers who are out to cure\nAlzheimer's disease, trying to get rid of experts who fight bird flu,\nand seeking access to computer systems at the IRS and the Social\nSecurity Administration--which contain personal and financial\ninformation for each and every single American.\n  I don't think most Americans want Elon Musk to know all of their\nfinancial information, their personal information, maybe even\nhealthcare information. But that could happen.\n  It is not combating fraud, all of these things. In fact, it is close\nto--particularly with the IRS information--committing fraud.\n  Indeed, the budget resolution we will vote on tonight is just further\nevidence that Republicans and President Trump have no plan and no real\ninterest in lowering costs for families, and I think that is wrong.\n  Now, I am all for tax cuts, but it should be tax cuts for the middle\nclass, tax cuts for those struggling with high prices, and tax cuts for\nsmall businesses, not 750 billionaires. Forcing regular Americans to\ncover tax cuts to the richest Americans is not the sort of economic\npolicy we should be pursuing in the Senate.\n  I urge my colleagues to rethink which Americans deserve their\nsupport.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.\n  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, starting last week, the Trump\nadministration began firing hundreds of Federal Aviation Administration\nemployees. Today, we had a hearing in the Commerce Committee to talk\nabout what kind of a key Deputy Secretary we need at the DOT, and we\nasked questions about this.\n  But what is perplexing is, while the American people were watching in\nhorror as a Delta Airlines plane flipped over on the Toronto runway,\nPresident Trump was focused instead on purging dedicated FAA employees\nfrom the Federal workforce, something that I believe makes us less safe\nin the skies. Among those fired were aeronautical information\nspecialists, legal instrument examiners, telecommunication\nspecialists--all of whom played a key role in supporting the work of\nair traffic controllers.\n  In fact, there was a story today in Politico. The headline is, ``Air\ntraffic controllers cannot do their work without us.'' That is a quote\nfrom the article. And inside the article, a statement, reading from the\narticle, ``One of the people last week let go was an aeronautical\ninformation specialist, a member of a team outside Washington whose job\nit was to create maps and highways in the sky, the pre-planned routes\nthat pilots control and controllers use to guide airplanes.''\n  So it is very perplexing that we have had these accidents, and now,\nwe have an administration that wants to cut people at the FAA. This\nheadline here refers to the fact that the last Trump administration\nactually blocked safety rules, and that is what today's Commerce\nhearing was about for the No. 2 person at the Department of\nTransportation, the people that served in the first Trump\nadministration, and why did they block these safety rules?\n  In fact, some of these safety rules, which would have required\nmanufacturers to have better safety, were written and proposed by the\nFAA--but when the Trump administration came in and then 9 days after\nthe first MAX crash--somehow, the rule that was set to move forward was\npulled.\n  So now, we are seeing an administration that is being, in my mind,\nthoughtless to the incidents that we have now seen in aviation and\nsaying it is okay to cut people at the FAA. I disagree.\n  The administration has said that it is no big deal because it is 1\npercent of the workforce. Now, I know the objective is to give a $4\ntrillion tax break to corporations and ultrawealthy people, but I don't\nunderstand how making the skies less safe helps you in that agenda. It\ndoesn't. The individual lives and safety of the American people are\nworth way more.\n  These people that got fired are not just a bunch of junior hires,\nno--one news report stated that ``More than 130 of those eliminated\nheld jobs that directly or indirectly support the air traffic\ncontrollers. They support the facilities and the technologies they use\nto keep the planes and their passengers safe.''\n  So you are going to tell me that a telecommunication specialist who\nsupports the maintenance of key communications technology used by\ncontrollers is not important to aviation safety?\n  Are you going to tell me that the legal instrument examiners who\nensure that the pilots are medically fit to fly are not important to\naviation safety? Are you going to tell me that the air traffic\ncontrollers--the same workers that originally were not exempted from\nthe administration's hiring freeze, but then, only after the fatal\ncollision at DCA put a spotlight on the issue, they finally exempted\ncontrollers from the freeze.\n  Most astonishing of all, though, is that the administration has let\ngo of aeronautical information specialists who evaluate and prepare\nnavigational charts and helicopter routes used by both controllers and\npilots.\n  Now, we have just had this midair collision in the DCA area, and what\nwas it about? A route that didn't seem to be a decision somebody had\nmade to let these planes fly too close together? Made no sense.\n  How did that route get approved? Who at the FAA said it was a good\nidea to allow the Department of Defense to fly in the same air space as\na plane landing on runway 33 at DCA airport?\n  So mapping helicopter routes in a busy air space, I think, is\ncritically important--and not somebody who should have been fired this\nweek from a job.\n  Our aviation system is not a place where you can shortchange workers.\nThis SMS rule proves it. This rule, which would have mandated that\nmanufacturers of aviation implement a Safety Management System,\nconstantly approving on analytical basis, is critical information about\nhow to maintain safety. But it never got implemented.\n  So I am concerned that an administration that in the previous Trump\nyears thwarted the safety rule and now is firing people at the FAA\nafter these crashes are going to continue to erode the aviation safety\nnet.\n  Surprisingly, after the helicopter crash with the CRJ from American\nAirlines--there was a lot of discussion about how and why a military\nhelicopter would be in the same space as a CRJ regional jet trying to\nland in DCA from Kansas. One of the questions asked was, why was there\nnot this Next Generation technology that would allow the helicopter to\nbe detected? This included a DOD helicopter in the DCA collision\nincident.\n  The issue is that the controllers needed this information, but in an\nexemption done in the Trump administration, gave them an exemption to\ndo this. And this week, we find out in a letter that they never, ever\nuse ADS-B as a way to help us in our navigation safety.\n  Air traffic controllers themselves know that these firings are anti-\nsafety. Ken Greenwood, a constituent of mine in Washington State, who\nis a former air traffic controller, wrote me on Sunday about how\nimportant these workers are. According to him, he said, ``These\ntechnicians and engineers maintain every piece of equipment that keeps\nour flying public safe, keeps radars and instrument landing to air\ntraffic controllers on automation. FAA technicians undergo years of\nspecialized training to maintain critical missions and systems and\ncannot be replaced quickly. In the 35 years since I began my controller\ncareer, we have\n\n[[Page S1093]]\n\nnever, never had a surplus of technicians or engineers.\n  ``To the contrary, it's a challenge to keep them in these jobs. Once\nour aviation system infrastructure is compromised, it takes decades to\ntake it back, and money will not be saved and lives may be lost.''\n  I thank Mr. Greenwood for his service. I hope the administration is\nlistening. I hope that you figure out now is not this time to\nshortchange aviation. Unfortunately, right now, we don't even have a\nconfirmed FAA Administrator. They are critical to this job. We had a\nstrong Administrator, Mike Whitaker, who was confirmed 98-0 by this\nbody. But that didn't matter to Elon Musk, who went after Administrator\nWhitaker because he dared to fine SpaceX for not following the rules,\nand as a result, the FAA now does not have an Administrator at one of\nits most critical points in decades.\n  All the firing of employees and dangling resignations and trying to\nget people to resign to save money to give a tax break of $4 trillion\nto corporations and the ultrawealthy is not what we should be doing.\n  We should be working hard on aviation safety. We should not be\nrolling back safety rules. We should be enforcing safety rules and\nimplementing them as fast as we can that says this body, this body\nknows that aviation safety is a priority.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.\n\n                                Ukraine\n\n  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.\n  I returned from Ukraine earlier this week, where I saw both the\nsuffering that the Ukrainian people have endured over the past 3 years\nat Putin's hand and the courage they have forged to save their country\nand their children--the suburban town of Bucha, where Russian troops\ntortured and massacred hundreds of civilians in the first day of\nPutin's unprovoked invasion; the shattered children's hospital Putin's\nmissiles nearly destroyed; apartment buildings in central Kyiv struck\nby Putin's drones; and lawyers searching for the thousands of Ukrainian\nchildren who have been kidnapped from their parents by Russian\nsoldiers.\n  By most estimates, at least 40,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed\nin battle and another 380,000 have been wounded since Putin's invasion.\nA draft of the general population in that country means that war has\nscarred nearly every neighborhood in this massive country. In\ncemeteries all across Ukraine, fresh graves piled with dirt and flowers\ntestify to their sacrifice. At least 12,000 civilians have been killed.\n  Amid this torment, the Ukrainian people continue to send troops to\nthe front in the dead of winter and to mobilize to keep their\nbusinesses and their homes and their kids in school. They did not ask\nfor Putin's thuggish invasion.\n  From the very beginning, our intelligence Agencies have told us\nsomething that Putin never has understood--that the Ukrainian people\nwill never submit to him; that if every weapon were denied them, they\nwould fight with sticks and stones and their bare hands to protect\ntheir country from any invading tyrant but especially from Vladimir\nPutin of Russia.\n  Fortunately for Ukraine and for the rest of the free world, they have\nnot had to fight this invasion with their bare hands. The American\npeople have steadfastly supported them. We have sent $66 billion in\nmilitary aid and $51 billion in nonmilitary aid. That is a lot of\nmoney, but it represents just 0.52 percent of our GPD. Unlike the wars\nin Afghanistan and Iraq, not a single American soldier has been sent to\nfight.\n  Our European allies have stepped up as well. Together, they have\nactually committed more than the United States. But their sums\nrepresent a much larger percentage of their economy--which makes sense\nbecause they are closer to the danger that Russia poses. At the same\ntime, even farther allies, like Australia and Japan, continue to\nsupport Ukraine as well.\n  Our allies and our partners know the stakes of this war. They know\nthat supporting Ukraine means standing with people that are willing to\nfight for the country they love. They know that rolling over to Putin\nwill embolden other dictators around the world, especially Xi Jinping\nof China.\n  The rest of us may not need this reminder, but the people sitting at\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue apparently do since they seem to be the only\nones in the free world who do not understand the stakes of this war.\n  Over the last few days, President Trump has chosen the side of\ntyranny of Putin, of Xi, and profoundly undermined our national\nsecurity. Like someone reading Russian Twitter bots, he deliberately\nand falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war. He called Zelenskyy--\nthe freedom fighter who is leading the fight in Ukraine--a dictator.\n  Mr. President, he invited Russia to rejoin the G7, a group of the\nworld's most powerful democracies that has met regularly since the\n1970s and which threw out Russia after Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014.\n  Before negotiations have even started, President Trump's Secretary of\nDefense, Pete Hegseth, took Ukraine's potential NATO membership off the\ntable. And just this week, the Trump administration held talks with\nRussia in Saudi Arabia without the decency of even inviting Ukraine to\nthe table. It pains me to say it, but our old colleague Secretary of\nState Marco Rubio even suggested that the United States should lift\nsanctions on and bolster economic collaboration with Russia while\nRussia shells civilians in Ukraine.\n  Some of our Republican colleagues believe that it doesn't matter what\nPresident Trump says, only what he does; that it doesn't matter when he\nsays that he is going to send American troops to Gaza or seize the\nPanama Canal or falsely accuses Ukraine of starting this war. But a\nPresident's words matter more than most, and President Trump's harmful\nwords and policies will only embolden Putin. They will further convince\nPutin that he is winning, that time is on his side, and that he has no\nreason to accept a peace deal that is anything less than overwhelmingly\nfavorable to his maximalist desire.\n  In literally every one of his comments on Ukraine, President Trump\nhas undermined our national security. Every time he opens his mouth, he\nweakens our bargaining position and makes the world more dangerous.\n  We all want this war to end. On that, the President and I agree. But\nfor the sake of Ukraine and the sake of the free world, it must only\nend with a just and enduring peace.\n\n  While the United States and our allies and Ukraine work together to\nestablish the terms of the peace and get ready to negotiate with Putin,\nthe Ukrainians are going to have to keep fighting throughout this\nwinter season--this freezing winter--where the civilian population is\njust doing everything they can to keep their houses and their\nbusinesses and their schools warm and livable. The Ukrainian soldiers\nare not asking to be relieved of this terrible burden. They are\nembracing it because they know that any cease-fire without meaningful\nsecurity guarantees will allow Putin to rebuild his weakened army and\nattack again and again and again.\n  Obviously--obviously--everyone in this Chamber knows that any\nmeaningful negotiation has to include Ukraine. Doing anything else, as\nthe Trump administration just did in Saudi Arabia, would be an insult\nto the memory of every soldier who has laid down their life in this\nwar.\n  I cannot claim to know Donald Trump well. It is obvious that I deeply\nregret his election, but I don't blame him for winning the election. He\nbeat my party, the Democratic Party, badly in two elections. He even\nfound a way to get elected after he was the first President in American\nhistory to take away a fundamental civil right from the American\npeople--a woman's right to choose. He still got elected again. That is\nextraordinary, and it is a testament, I am sorry to say, to the\nDemocratic Party's weaknesses and to his own skills and talents,\nparticularly in this era.\n  I don't doubt that his experience as a reality TV star taught him\nthings that helped him get elected. I am much less certain, however,\nthat his checkered commercial real estate background prepared him to\nnegotiate a hotel deal with Vladimir Putin, much less a deal that\nconcerns the fate of the free world.\n  Donald Trump is not the only person with private sector experience in\nour\n\n[[Page S1094]]\n\ngovernment. I can tell you from my experience from working in Denver,\nwhen someone is having a negotiation who has deal fever, you can see\nit. You can smell it when they are so desperate for a deal on any\nterms. The people who I negotiated with in Denver had a lot more\ndiscipline than that. We told each other that we would never agree to\nany deal that hadn't cratered at least three times, because that was\nthe only way you could tell whether you were getting the best deal. If\nyou didn't have the guts to walk away, you were never going to get the\nbest deal that you could.\n  I have never seen a worse case of deal fever than Donald Trump's\napproach to the coming negotiation with Vladimir Putin. Never in my\nlife have I seen it, and it has never been more important. I doubt the\nworld has seen such an ill-conceived pursuit of negotiation since the\ninfamous 1938 Munich Agreement in which the UK and France and Italy\nallowed Nazi Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia. The damage he is\ndoing is not only that we will get a worse deal; it is that we will\nundermine Ukraine's position on the frontlines. Without security\nguarantees from the United States and from Europe, Putin will only bide\nhis time, regroup, and invade again.\n  After the fictions that President Trump has spewed about who started\nthis war, not to mention the chorus of defeatism from his Vice\nPresident, his Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National\nIntelligence, does anyone--does anybody--including Putin and Xi\nJinping, doubt what would happen if Putin invaded again? This is less\nthe ``Art of the Deal,'' I am afraid, than it is the ``art of defeat.''\nAfter all of these years, after all of these battles, it would be truly\npathetic for the United States, the world's most powerful country, to\naccept a fever-induced deal with Russia, like the Munich Agreement.\n  Look it up--not, perhaps, on Twitter but in your much more reliable\n10th grade Western civ textbook. After that deal, Hitler did not stop\nat Czechoslovakia but continued his war on Europe. Left unchecked,\nPutin will do the same thing, as Putin's propagandists have told us\nrepeatedly.\n  To make matters worse, anyone concerned about Beijing's potential\ntakeover of Taiwan knows that there will be no better test of how the\nfree world will respond to Xi's potential invasion than how we respond\nto Putin. Come to think of it, if China does invade Taiwan, how would\nwe evaluate the leadership capacity of an American President who\nclaimed that it was Taiwan who had invaded China, not the other way\naround? That is the level of duplicity that we are seeing from Donald\nTrump right now.\n  So why the deal fever? That is a good question. President Trump's\naspiration for a Nobel Peace Prize is well known. He can hang it next\nto his gold-plated faucets and his first editions of the ``Art of the\nDeal.'' But if he heard from people in this Chamber, even he might\nthink twice if he understood that walking down this path of appeasement\nmakes him more likely to be remembered like Neville Chamberlain.\n  Negotiations can end this war in a just manner only if Ukraine can\nnegotiate them from a place of strength.\n  The American people have been incredibly generous in our support of\nUkraine, but, even so, this war has cost us less than 0.6 percent of\nour GDP while allowing us to send Ukraine old weapons when we invest in\nour own cutting-edge replacements, permitting us to learn from\nUkraine's extraordinary innovation on the frontlines and its world-\nclass use of new warfighting technologies, such as drones, and boosting\nour economy without costing a single American soldier's life.\n  We and our European allies have to continue surging military\nassistance to Ukraine, not forever but so Ukraine is best positioned to\nmake this deal not just for Ukraine but for us and for free countries\nall over the world. Contrary to what many people believed at the outset\nof this war and what President Trump apparently believes today, Putin's\ninvasion of Ukraine has been costly to him--very costly to him. Three\nyears of the Ukrainian peoples' tenacity and courage have degraded the\nRussian military. As we speak, Russia is losing twice the number of\nsoldiers every month as Putin's war continues. In total, Putin has\nsquandered more than $200 billion and suffered a staggering 700,000 in\ncasualties at the hands of Ukrainian patriots. It is three times the\nnumber of soldiers Russia lost in Afghanistan--a country famously\nregarded as the graveyard of empires.\n  We didn't ask for this war, neither did Ukraine, but Putin is in a\nweaker position to threaten Europe today than when he first swung his\niron fist at the Ukrainian people. The last thing we should do now is\nweaken our negotiating position when we and Europe have so much at\nstake--when the world has so much at stake.\n  Putin believes he can beat Ukraine not because he thinks Ukrainians\nare weak but because he thinks we are weak, and he thinks President\nTrump is a pushover and a sucker. At the beginning of his invasion of\nUkraine, Putin, who was surrounded as tyrants are and as dictators are\nby yes-men who are scared to tell them the truth about their own\nweaknesses and, in this case, Russia's weaknesses, made three\nfundamental miscalculations going into the war.\n\n  One was about the strength of his own army. He had invested billions\nof dollars planning for the invasion, but much of it was siphoned off\nbecause of Russia's endemic corruption.\n  The second miscalculation was about the Ukrainian people's patriotism\nand willingness to fight to the death. No matter how President Trump\ntries to undermine this sacrifice, the honor roll of history will\nforever--will forever--record Ukraine's courage.\n  Putin's third miscalculation was that the world would roll over and\nallow him to invade his peaceful neighbor. Unlike the other two\nmistakes, he had evidence for the final point. After all, when he began\nhis invasion in 2014 by lawlessly sending his ``little green men'' to\noccupy Crimea, which is part of Ukraine, the world did nothing. The\nUnited States did nothing. He thought the world would do nothing when\nhe invaded again.\n  It turned out, unlike Putin, we actually learned from our mistake.\nThe free world has stood up to Putin this time around. We have supplied\narms and other support while the Ukrainian people have died on the\nfrontline of their country and for the West. Their cemeteries are\nbulging with fresh graves. They have earned the free world's support.\n  But even more important to us and our allies, we have protected our\nnational security and affirmed our commitment to the post-World War II\nrules-based international order. How this ends will determine whether\nthat order persists and whether the United States continues to provide\nthe leadership our parents and grandparents supplied since World War\nII. World War II was another war started by a tyrant, but it was ended\nby the world's democracies.\n  Many Americans inside this Chamber and outside understand the stakes.\nThey know, as Ronald Reagan proclaimed 40 years ago, in advancing\nfreedom, Americans carry a special burden: a belief in the dignity of\nman and that freedom is America's core and that we should never deny it\nnor forsake it. This is what we risk today by withdrawing our support\nof Ukraine. We will abandon both the Ukrainian people and the core of\nwhat America stands for, and we cannot do it.\n  This is personal for me and so many of us. My mom was born a Jew in\nWarsaw in 1938. She and her parents and an aunt were the only ones who\nsurvived the Holocaust. The Nazis killed everyone else in her family.\nAuthoritarian aggression left an indelible mark on my family and\ncountless other families in Ukraine and Poland in the 1930s and 1940s,\nwhere Stalin and Hitler killed together 16 million human beings. These\nvictims of fascism died, believing that they were invisible to the rest\nof the world, forgotten people in unforgettable years.\n  The lesson I learned from my mom is that the United States can never\nlet that happen again by trying to appease a dictator the way that\nChamberlain did. That is not apocryphal, or a made-up story. I had\ndinner last night with my mom. She is 86 years old. She can't believe\nthat she has lived long enough--I am happy that she has, but she can't\nbelieve that she has lived long enough to see another tyrant's invasion\nof their peaceful, democratic European neighbor. But she hasn't\n\n[[Page S1095]]\n\nlived long enough to forget her generation's searing lessons. She knows\nthe eternal truth--that the greatest enemy of fascism is man.\n  Even if President Trump continues to ignore reality, my mother and\nmillions of Americans who make up the ``greatest generation''\nunderstand the United States has a special responsibility.\n  It has always been far too easy for some in high office to ignore\ntheir moral responsibility to people sacrificing their lives a\ncontinent away on behalf of our shared values and interests. History\noccasionally records their names--like Chamberlain's--in blood.\n  It is particularly easy today to play to self-defeating isolationist\ntendencies in the daily headlines, to make rash comments that are\nfoolish and unpatriotic and that Russian trolls spread like wildfire\nacross social media platforms. It is far too easy to do the wrong\nthing. It always has been.\n  It is a lot harder, but necessary, for the living to stand for\nfreedom and democracy and those willing to give the last measure of\nthemselves for those eternal values. At this moment, the United States\nis the only country who can lead the free world against these\ndictators, against these tyrants.\n  The Americans who serve in this Chamber must fulfill our\nresponsibility to the American people and demand the President fulfill\nhis patriotic responsibility in the days ahead. Everything now is in\nour hands. The moment demands that the United States of America lead--\nfor the sake of the Ukrainian people, for our own national security,\nand for democracy around the world. Our failure will not just be\ndamaging; it will be devastating.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.\n  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we live in difficult times, in times\nwhere people throughout our country are experiencing a great deal of\nanxiety for a number of reasons. And in the midst of all of that, it is\nimportant that we not forget what is taking place not only in Ukraine\nbut back home here in the United States.\n  And back home, right now, tens of millions of Americans are\nstruggling economically to keep their heads above water. Mr. President,\n60 percent of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, 85 million\nare uninsured or underinsured, and we have the highest rate of\nchildhood poverty of almost any major nation on Earth.\n  And as someone who has visited senior centers throughout the State of\nVermont and has spoken to seniors throughout our country, I can tell\nyou that there is a significant level of fear and anxiety among the\nolder people in this country with regard to what is happening right\nhere in DC. When we have a President of the United States and\nRepublicans who are talking about massive cuts to Medicaid, let's\nunderstand--and seniors do understand--that we are not just talking\nabout throwing millions of kids off the healthcare that they have at a\ntime when we are the only major country not to provide healthcare to\nall people--not just kids off their healthcare, we are talking about\nmassive cuts to community health centers, which receive over 40 percent\nof their funding from Medicaid and where millions of seniors go to get\nthe primary care they need.\n  And at a time when we already have a major crisis in nursing home\navailability, let us understand that Medicaid provides funding for two\nout of every three seniors who live in nursing homes. In other words,\nmassive cuts to Medicaid would be a disaster for senior citizens\nthroughout this country.\n  But it is not just Medicaid cuts that worry our seniors. Today, quite\nunbelievably--and we don't talk about this anywhere near enough--25\npercent of people in our country who are 65 years of age or older are\ntrying to survive on incomes of $15,000 a year or less. I myself do not\nknow how anybody, let alone a senior with healthcare needs, can survive\non $15,000 a year, but that is what 25 percent of our seniors are\ntrying to do.\n  Mr. President, this issue of so many seniors struggling to get by,\nstruggling to heat their homes, struggling to buy the food or the\nprescription drugs they need, this is an issue we must address, and it\nis a crisis that is unacceptable in the richest country in the history\nof the world.\n  That is why I am proud to tell you that within the next several\nweeks, I, along with a number of cosponsors, will be introducing\nlegislation that expands Social Security benefits and extends the\nsolvency of Social Security for decades.\n  We are hearing a lot of talk about cutting Social Security. We should\nnot be talking about cutting Social Security; we must be talking about\nexpanding Social Security benefits. And the legislation that I will\nintroduce would do just that. It would expand Social Security benefits\nby $2,400 a year, and it would not raise taxes by one penny on the\nbottom 93 percent of Americans, those who make less than $250,000 a\nyear.\n\n  And how do we do that? By lifting the cap at applying the Social\nSecurity payroll tax on all income above $250,000. Unbelievably, under\ncurrent law, a billionaire pays the same amount of money into Social\nSecurity as someone who makes $176,000 a year. Elon Musk, worth $400\nbillion, pays the same amount into Social Security as somebody who\nmakes $176,000. That is because, under Social Security, there is an\nabsurd cap on taxable income. If we lifted that cap and made sure that\nmillionaires and billionaires paid the same percentage of their income\ninto Social Security as the working class of this country, we could\nextend the life of Social Security for generations to come and lift\nmillions of seniors out of poverty.\n  Further, when we talk about the needs of senior citizens in this\ncountry, I want to mention that I will also be introducing legislation\nto expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing. It is\nunacceptable that millions of seniors are unable to read a newspaper\nbecause they cannot afford eyeglasses, can't have conversations with\ntheir grandchildren because they can't afford hearing aids, and have\ntrouble eating because they cannot afford dentures. That should not be\nhappening in the United States of America in the year 2025.\n  Expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing is an\nextremely popular concept. Poll after poll shows that 80 percent of the\nAmerican people--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--support doing\njust that.\n  Mr. President, when we talk about the anxieties that the American\npeople are now experiencing, it is not just, to say the least, senior\ncitizens. All across this country, there is a growing fear that the\nTrump administration is undermining the Constitution of our country, a\nConstitution which has kept us a free nation, an example, a model for\nthe rest of the world for the last 250 years.\n  During the last month alone, President Trump has attempted to usurp\nthe powers of Congress, illegally and unconstitutionally refusing to\nfund programs passed by Congress. He has illegally destroyed agencies\nlike USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that were\ncreated by Congress. And under the leadership of Mr. Musk, they have\nillegally and inappropriately gained access to tax data and Social\nSecurity data of millions of Americans, et cetera, et cetera. Every\nday, they are acting in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.\n  And I would say this--and I don't know if people take it seriously or\nnot; I do--just this week, President Trump tweeted:\n\n       He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.\n\n  Wow. In other words, Mr. Trump sees himself, the President of the\nUnited States, as above the law and immune from the basic rules of the\nConstitution and the separation of powers that have governed this\ncountry since the founding.\n  Hey, anything I want to do--I am President--I can do it. It doesn't\nmatter what Congress says. It doesn't matter what the Constitution\nsays. It doesn't matter what the rule of law is about. Hey, I am the\nPresident. I am trying to save the country. I don't need to hear from\nanybody else.\n  That is not what Americans fought and died to preserve. That is not\nwhat this country is about.\n  And with regard to the movement toward authoritarianism, let me say a\nfew words about an area that I think has not gotten much attention at\nall, and that is Trump's attack on the free press, which is protected\nby the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers of\nthis country considered freedom of speech and free\n\n[[Page S1096]]\n\npress to be enormously important. That was the First Amendment.\n  Mr. Trump has sued CBS and its parent company, Paramount, for $20\nbillion because he didn't like how they edited an interview with Vice\nPresident Kamala Harris. The company is now reportedly considering\nsettling the lawsuit--and I certainly hope they do not do that--out of\nfear of retaliation from Trump's FCC.\n  He did not like a television program on CBS. Well, many of us don't\nlike television programs on CBS or NBC or FOX or ABC, but you don't sue\nsomebody for $20 billion because you didn't like the program. And,\nobviously, the intention of that lawsuit is clear, and that is that CBS\nand every other network and media outlet will now have to look over\ntheir shoulder: Oh, my goodness, we are saying something critical of\nDonald Trump. Is he going to sue us for 5 billion, for 10 billion? Is\nhe going to drive us out of business? Maybe we should not run that\nprogram. Maybe we should not do that investigative report.\n  Not just CBS. In recent times, he has sued ABC. He has sued Meta,\nwhich owns Facebook and Instagram. He has sued the Des Moines Register.\nWhat crime did a little newspaper in Iowa make? What was their crime?\nThey ran a poll which turned out, in retrospect, to be inaccurate.\n  So pollsters all over America, be careful. There was a poll coming\nout just today--I saw it--that Trump's unfavorables are going up. Hey,\nyou may be sued. Pull that poll.\n  I mean, how absurd is that? And what kind of threat is it to freedom\nof speech and expression in this country?\n  And when we talk about the Trump administration's movement toward\nauthoritarianism, we should take note of another remarkable and\ntroubling set of events that happened just this week, and my colleague\nfrom Colorado spoke at length on that. We saw the President of the\nUnited States openly aligning himself with the dictator of Russia--the\ndictator of Russia--Vladimir Putin, to undermine the independence of\nUkraine and abandon our closest democratic allies in Europe.\n  Trump made it clear that he sees one of the world's most brutal\ndictators as his pal and our longtime democratic allies as his enemies.\nIt appears that Mr. Trump wants a world that is safe for authoritarians\nand oligarchs but dangerous and unstable for democracies.\n  And when we talk about authoritarianism, we have got to mention the\ngrowing phenomenon in this country of the Big Lie. The Big Lie.\n  Say something that is blatantly untrue, repeat it over and over\nagain, and then blast that lie out on social media until people\nactually believe it.\n  Let me mention one of the very big lies that Trump said recently\nregarding the war in Ukraine earlier this week. The President said that\nUkraine started the war. Trump said that Ukraine started the war.\nReally? That is, as I hope every Member of the Senate knows, an\nabsolute lie.\n  Russia invaded Ukraine twice; first, in 2014 and then again on\nFebruary 24, 2022. And on that date, February 24, 2022, Putin's tanks\nand troops rolled into Ukraine. And on that day, Russian aircraft began\nbombing targets all over Ukraine. Russia started the war. Period. End\nof discussion. Trump is lying.\n  Since Putin's invasion, over 1 million people have been killed or\ninjured every single day. Russia continues to rain down hundreds of\nmissiles and drones on Ukrainian cities. Putin's forces have massacred\ncivilians and kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children, bringing them\nback to Russian reeducation camps. These atrocities led the\nInternational Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Vladimir\nPutin in 2023 as a war criminal.\n  Further, Trump called Ukrainian President Zelenskyy--not Putin, but\nZelenskyy--a dictator, and that obviously is not true either. Zelenskyy\nwon 75 percent of the vote in free elections, and in the midst of a\nbrutal war, Ukraine's Parliament continues to function and open and\nunfettered political debate takes place.\n  Trump recently claimed that our European allies have done little to\nsupport Ukraine in its fight against Putin's invasion. He said the\nUnited States has contributed three times more than Europe. Well, that\nis another lie. In fact, Europe has provided more aid to Ukraine than\nthe United States.\n  But it is not just that Trump is lying again. That is not new. It is\nwhat this all reveals about where we want to take our country and where\nwe want the world to be moving--what direction.\n  Trump is cozying up to Vladimir Putin. So who is Putin, and what kind\nof world does Putin want to build? Putin is a dictator who crushed\nRussia's movement toward democracy after the end of the Cold War.\nRussia now holds sham elections where Putin wins 90 percent of the\nvote, and authorities there do not even try to hide their ballot\nstuffing.\n  There is no freedom of speech or free media in Putin's Russia.\nProtests are violently suppressed. Tens of thousands of people are\nimprisoned for protesting Putin's invasion of Ukraine.\n  Political dissidents are harassed or thrown into jail. The bravest\npeople like Alexei Navalny are killed outright. Hundreds of thousands\nof Russians have fled Putin's Russia since his invasion of Ukraine.\n  That is the Russian leader that Donald Trump admires. But my\nRepublican colleagues know all of this. And what is particularly\ndisturbing to me--and I believe the American people--is my colleagues,\nmy Republican colleagues, understand and know that Trump is lying; they\nknow that Russia started the war, not Ukraine; they know that Putin is\na dictator, not Zelenskyy, but their silence has been overwhelming on\nthis issue.\n  I cannot tell you how many times I have sat here on the floor and I\nhave listened to my Republican colleagues come to the Senate to condemn\nVladimir Putin and his brutal invasion of Ukraine. Many of their\nremarks were right on the money. They were perceptive, and they were\nright.\n  And my simple question to my Republican colleagues right now is:\nWhere are you now? Last I heard, this is still a democracy. Last I\nheard, we are still allowed to disagree with the President of the\nUnited States, even if he is a member of your own party.\n  Last I heard, we are allowed to call out the President when he lies--\nblatantly lies--even if he is a member of our own party. And what\nreally bothers me is I know that many of my Republican colleagues\nunderstand all of this.\n  I just want to give you an example of what is going on right now. Let\nme just quote a few of my Republican colleagues in statements they have\nmade since Putin's invasion of Ukraine.\n  These are Republican Members of the U.S. Senate, and I am not going\nto mention names right now. I don't want to embarrass anyone, put\nanybody on the spot. These are quotes.\n  One leading Republican said:\n\n       We must remember that the instigator of this war was\n     Russia. It was President Putin who launched an unprovoked\n     attack on Ukraine.\n\n  That Republican colleague was obviously right.\n  Another Republican said:\n\n       I think Vladimir Putin started the war. I also believe,\n     through bitter experience, that Vladimir Putin is a gangster.\n\n  That is a Republican colleague.\n  A third Republican colleague:\n\n       There is no equivalency between Vladimir Putin and\n     President Zelenskyy. President Putin is evil, and he has to\n     be stopped.\n\n  Fourth Republican--and this is just a few of the quotes. I could\nprobably come up with dozens of quotes. Fourth Republican said when the\nwar began:\n\n       Today's invasion of Ukraine by Russia is a premeditated and\n     flagrant act of war. Putin has violated the border of a\n     sovereign country.\n\n  That Senator later said:\n\n       Anyone who is surprised by Putin's deadly attack on a\n     sovereign nation has not been paying attention. These are the\n     actions of a madman.\n\n  Just recently that very same Senator said:\n\n       Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine. If we abandon\n     Ukraine and throw in the towel--as some would like us to do--\n     that is going to drastically change how people view the\n     United States, and how people rely on the United States, and\n     there will be major consequences.\n\n  A fifth Republican--fifth Republican colleague here in the Senate\ncalled Putin a thug and compared him to Hitler. He said:\n\n       Vladimir Putin is not a legitimate leader. He is a war\n     criminal that needs to be dealt with.\n\n  That is what my Republican colleagues have said time and time again.\n\n[[Page S1097]]\n\nThe question is, Now do you have the courage to continue telling the\ntruth when the President of the United States is lying?\n  This is an extraordinarily pivotal moment in American history, and\nall of us must have the courage to stand up for truth, to stand up for\ndemocracy, to oppose authoritarianism. This is the moment.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n\n                             S. Con. Res. 7\n\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, families lose, billionaires win. That is\nthe proposition at the heart of the Republican budget resolution. Now,\nthis plan is going to be explored tonight through a series of\namendments.\n  As the American people watch how we vote on these amendments, it will\nbecome clearer and clearer what it is all about; families lose,\nbillionaires win.\n  We will see tonight that Democrats vote against irreparable increases\nto the deficit, and Republicans vote to explode the deficit.\n  We will see tonight, Democrats vote against tax giveaways to the\nbillionaires, and Republicans vote for tax giveaways to the\nbillionaires.\n  We will see tonight, Democrats vote again and again to protect\nprograms that support families while Republicans vote time and time\nagain to slash those programs, those programs that families depend on\nto be on their feet and to thrive, to move into the middle class, to\nmove beyond the middle class, to know with confidence that their\nchildren will have a strong foundation for growing up.\n  That is what we will see tonight; families lose, and billionaires\nwin. Democrats will fight this terrible vision for America in every\nsingle way we can.\n  Now, our Republican colleagues earlier on the floor said: Oh, no, no.\nThis bill is nothing except a little bit about border security and\nnational security.\n  If that were true, then why isn't this a conversation in the spending\ncommittee, the Appropriations Committee? If that were true, why did our\nRepublican colleagues repeatedly block bipartisan border and Defense\nbills?\n  Last year, the Appropriations Committee passed a strong bipartisan\ndefense bill. Let's pass it. Last year, the Senate negotiated a\nbipartisan border deal, and Donald Trump, the candidate, killed it\nsaying he wanted to exploit the issue of immigration on the campaign\ntrail. Well, the campaign is over. There is a path now for that same\nbipartisan bill on the border.\n  All of this makes it absolutely clear that this bill is not about\nborder and defense. This bill is all about this; families losing,\nbillionaires winning.\n  This bill has a budget table that relays that they are going to slash\n$1 trillion in programs for families in just the last 6 months of this\nfiscal year--between now and September 30--and to do so, to fund more\ntax giveaways to megamillionaires and billionaires, cut the programs\nfor families to fund tax cuts for billionaires. That is what this is\nabout.\n  We saw that also last Wednesday in the Budget Committee. Democrats\noffered amendment after amendment to protect the programs, and what did\nwe see to protect against the rising cost of groceries? Democrats voted\nfor that protection; Republicans rejected it.\n  Make sure that we don't lose the tax credits that enable the middle\nclass to buy health insurance on the exchange? Democrats defended those\ncredits; Republicans voted against it.\n  Attack Medicaid, healthcare for the poor? Democrats voted to protect\nMedicaid, and Republicans voted against it.\n  Lower the price of prescription drugs so we don't pay more than\npeople in other countries? Democrats voted for that protection;\nRepublicans rejected it.\n  And on and on. Renting or buying a home, controlling the costs?\nDemocrats voted to defend and lower housing costs; Republicans rejected\nit.\n  Making college more expensive? Democrats said: No way. We voted\nagainst that. Republicans rejected it so they could raise costs of\ncollege loans and childcare.\n  That is what this bill is about; families lose, and billionaires win.\nRepublicans rejected every single amendment to help families stand on\ntheir feet and thrive, and families are going to pay a much higher\nprice. In fact, this budget resolution opens the door to higher prices\non groceries. That is Trumpflation. Trumpflation has arrived. This\nbudget opens the door to making healthcare more expensive, both for\nlow-income families and for middle-class families.\n  Trumpflation, this budget opens the door to making college more\nexpensive. I was the first in my family to go to college. It was a\nreally big deal that we found a way to be able to afford to go.\n  My family helped out, and I worked my way all through college. Making\nit more expensive, that is wrong. Trumpflation has arrived in the form\nof making college more expensive--all of this strategy to increase the\ncosts for Americans.\n  Boy, I am not getting any calls to my office. Are you getting any\ncalls to your office, colleagues? Saying we want to raise the cost for\nAmericans? Didn't I hear Trump on the campaign trail saying he was all\nabout lowering costs?\n  But tonight, this bill is about Trumpflation increasing the cost of\ngoods to ordinary Americans. Yes, it is about decreasing the cost to\nbillionaires through massive tax cuts. This bill is all about helping\nthe billionaire team.\n  But those thousands of phone calls I have gotten--some days I have\nhad over 2,000 phone calls--not one--not one single one said: We want\nTrumpflation. Not one single one said: We want tax cuts for\nbillionaires. Not one single call at 2,000 a day said: We want you to\ncut the programs that enable families to be on their feet in healthcare\nand housing and education and childcare.\n  Candidate Trump is a different person from President Trump. Candidate\nTrump said: I am running to fight for families. But now who is he\nfighting for? He is fighting for the megamillionaires and the\nbillionaires. This is a great betrayal.\n  And this connection exists between cutting the programs for families\nand funding tax giveaways to those megamillionaires and billionaires,\nand we have seen this movie before. We saw it in the 2017 strategy\nduring the last Trump administration. They did a tax bill and almost\nall the money went to the wealthiest Americans.\n  So this isn't some, like, fiction about President Trump. This is a\nclear replay of the Republican plan. They did it before, and they are\ndoing it again.\n  Now, you probably heard the expression during your life: Fool me\nonce, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Well, America, you are\ngetting fooled a second time. This is the great betrayal. Let's not let\nthat happen.\n  We will fight it here, but it is going to take American citizens\nrising up to their feet, getting off of the couch, joining\norganizations, making their voice heard. That is what is going to make\nthe difference in the course of what happens here in Congress. It is\nthe voice of the people on the streets, as well as the battle we lead\ninside this Chamber, that is going to save us from Trumpflation, that\nis going to save us from the plan that attacks families and feathers\nthe nests of billionaires.\n  This connection between cutting programs for families and increasing\ntax giveaways for billionaires, it is actually in the Republican bill\non the House side. They made it explicit.\n  This House language says for every additional dollar they cut from\nthe safety net, they can give away an additional dollar to billionaires\nin tax cuts.\n  It is in the Republican bill in the House just down the hall. That is\na pretty remarkable and bold thing to lay out for all of America to\nread. There is an additional factor here in the Republican plan, and\nthat is to run the Nation deeper into debt.\n  We have seen this play again before. Each of these bars represents an\nadministration. The first President Bush administration, the Clinton\nadministration, George W. Bush, his 8 years, Obama's 8 years, Trump's 4\nyears, Biden's 4 years, and what you see is the difference between the\ndeficit their first year in office and their last year in office.\n  So what happened over the course of H.W. Bush's 4 years is the\ndeficit went up. What you see in Clinton's 8 years is the annual\ndeficit went down. His last deficit was not even a deficit, it was a\nsurplus.\n  George W. Bush came along and said: Let's run that deficit right back\nup,\n\n[[Page S1098]]\n\nand he did it, 8 years; a lot more deficit in his eighth year than his\nfirst year. Obama came along and set fiscal discipline. Let's lower\nthat deficit, and he lowered it year after year from his first year to\nhis eighth year.\n  And then we come to the first Trump administration, and he just blew\nthe top off it all. Talk about the biggest contributor, the biggest\ndeficits, the biggest contributors to national debt, it is the first\nTrump administration. And along comes the Biden administration and\nsays: We have got to lower those deficits; and in his 4 years, his\nfourth deficit was much lower than his first.\n  Now we are seeing Trump II, and this budget plan tonight, that is\nthis bar. This is going back up. Maybe not as large to be planned as\nTrump I in terms of that, but absolutely going in the wrong direction.\n  So it is a mystery. My Republican colleagues, they campaign as\nfiscally conservative. They say they are going to lower the deficit,\nand every single time they fool us. They come in here, they cut the\ntaxes for the richest Americans, revenues proceed to fail to\ncompensate, and they run up the deficit.\n  And now they are going to do it again if we let this budget\nresolution pass. So let's not let it pass. Let's oppose it.\n  Republican colleagues, come and join us in fiscal responsibility and\ntake this budget resolution that is laying out a vision of more and\nmore deficits and more and more debt and put it in the woodchipper.\n  We have been hearing a lot about the woodchipper. Take this plan that\ncuts programs for families and put it in the woodchipper. Take this\nplan that gives tax giveaways to the richest Americans--the\nmegamillionaires and the billionaires--and put it in the woodchipper\nbecause it is wrong for America to attack the programs for families in\norder to fund tax giveaways to billionaires.\n  President Trump has said he wants a ``big, beautiful''--beautiful--\n``bill.'' But you know what? There is nothing beautiful about the bill\nthat is on the floor tonight. There is nothing beautiful about\ndestroying the programs families depend on. There is nothing beautiful\nabout using those cuts to fund tax cuts for billionaires. There is\nnothing beautiful about running up the deficits and debt Republican-\nstyle that they do every single time.\n  What we have right now is not government by and for the people. What\nwe have right now is by and for the billionaires. President Trump made\nthat very clear at his inaugural address. Who do we have standing right\nbehind him? Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire of Facebook; at this end,\nthe scowl on his face, Elon Musk, CEO of so many companies, including\nTesla. Who do we have? Jeff Bezos of Amazon, one of the richest men in\nthe world along with Elon Musk. And we have Sundar Pichai, the CEO of\nAlphabet, the mother company of Google. By and for billionaires, that\nis what that is all about.\n  So Democrats will not rest tonight until we vote on each of our\namendments to protect working families. We will not rest tonight till\nwe vote on each of our amendments to stop the tax giveaways to\nbillionaires. And tonight, Democrats will be fighting by ourselves,\ninviting our Republican colleagues to join us.\n  But we will not be fighting for ourselves alone; we are fighting for\nthe American family. This Republican budget, it is the great betrayal;\nand we, the Democrats, will fight to stop it.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, in a few moments, Senators will\nbegin voting on amendments to the Republican plan that cuts taxes for\nthe ultrarich. Everything--everything that Donald Trump and the\nRepublicans have done over the last month--all the chaos, all the\nlawlessness that we have seen--serves one crooked goal. Donald Trump,\nElon Musk, and Republicans are trying to give their billionaire buddies\na tax break and have you--the American people--pay the cost.\n  It can be summed up very simply in this wonderful chart that my\nfriend from Oregon has put together. What the chart says, under the\nRepublican plan: ``Families lose, billionaires win.''\n  What could be further from what Americans want? What could be\nfurther? Tonight, Democrats are going to force Republicans to defend\ntheir tax cuts for billionaires like Elon Musk.\n  We are going to be here all night. We are going to put forward\namendments forcing Republicans to defend their unpopular agenda,\nexposing the Republican plan for what it is: a massive, massive\nbillionaire giveaway, paid for on the backs of working-class and\nmiddle-class Americans.\n  The Republicans know they want to hide this. They know it is not\npopular. They know 80 percent of the American people dislike this plan.\nSo Donald Trump and others obfuscate. They want us to pay attention to\nGulf of America, building hotels in Gaza, annexing Canada. Why?\n  Why are they doing these bits of foolishness? They don't want the\nAmerican people to see that the Republican plan has families lose and\nbillionaires win.\n  Our amendments will come in three categories: One focused on tax cuts\nfor the billionaires, trying to undo those; one focused on the damage\nRepublicans will inflict on American families in order to pay for their\ntax cuts; and one bucket--the final bucket--focused on lawlessness and\ncorruption done in service to create chaos so they can cut taxes for\nbillionaires.\n  Those are the categories: one focused on tax cuts for billionaires,\none focused on damage Republicans inflict on American families to pay\nfor those tax cuts, and one on Trump's lawlessness and corruption done\nin service to create chaos, so they can cut taxes for billionaires.\n  Let me repeat: Tonight, Democrats will force Republicans to defend\ntheir cuts for billionaires, and tonight will just be the first time.\nWe will be doing this over and over again.\n  Because we know that they don't want the American people to know that\nthat is their North Star. Almost everything they do is aimed at getting\nthose tax breaks for the billionaires. We are also going to force\nRepublicans to defend their cuts on American families, cutting\nhealthcare and Medicaid and education and housing and more. All to pay\nfor the tax cuts of their billionaire buddies.\n  Finally, Democrats will force the Republicans to defend Donald\nTrump's scorched earth assault on the rule of law, an assault he is\nwaging in order to put more money in the pockets of billionaires.\n  That is what tonight is all about, how Republicans want to help\nbillionaires win, American families lose, and the rule of law burned to\nthe ground.\n  I thank my colleagues for bringing the amendments to the floor. We\nare going to be here all night. We have lots of amendments that are in\nthese three categories. It will be a long night, but it is a debate the\nAmerican people need to see, deserve to see. And that is why we are\nhere.\n  We Democrats are glad to have this debate. Let's have it two, three\nmore times, when they come up with this new reconciliation and that,\nwhen the House and Senate Republicans finally get their act together.\nBring it on.\n  I am proud to offer tonight's very first amendment, one that makes a\nsimple proposal: Nobody, nobody, nobody making more than a billion\ndollars should get yet another tax break. That is it. That is the\namendment. If you make a billion dollars, God bless you, you are doing\nfine, but you don't deserve a tax break.\n  I would love to hear the Republicans argue why of all people who need\na tax break right now, it is the billionaire class.\n  In this era of high inflation and growing inequality, billionaires\naren't the ones who should be getting the massive tax giveaway. They\nare doing just fine. Instead, we should be helping working- and middle-\nclass Americans get better jobs, earn higher paychecks, and pay lower\ncosts.\n\n  So, tonight, the very first question Republicans must answer is this:\nDo you agree--Mr./Mrs. Republican Senator, Ms. Republican Senator, all\nthe Republican Senators--do all the Republican Senators agree that\nbillionaires should not be getting another tax break? Yes or no? And if\nyou don't think they should get a tax break--that billionaires should\nget a tax break--just vote with us in supporting this amendment.\n  We are going to get our answer very, very soon, and that answer, the\nAmerican people are going to see over and\n\n[[Page S1099]]\n\nover and over again, over the next hours, the next days, the next\nweeks, the next months.\n  The second amendment will be offered by Senator Klobuchar to prevent\nRepublicans from lowering taxes for billionaires if the price of food\nkeeps going up.\n  Donald Trump said, when he was campaigning, he was going to bring\ninflation down on day one, but inflation is going up.\n  Donald Trump--Mr. President Trump--it is going up. What about your\npromise--it is going to go down on day one?\n  Grocery prices are up: chicken, pork, steak--more expensive--eggs, up\n15 percent from last month.\n  While Americans continue to struggle paying for groceries, feeding\ntheir kids, the last thing we should be doing is cutting taxes for the\nrichest of the rich in this country.\n  And I will offer the third amendment of the evening, one that stops\nRepublicans from kicking people off Medicaid to pay for their\nbillionaire tax breaks.\n  Eighty million Americans, a little less than a quarter of all\nAmericans--80 million--get health insurance through Medicaid, from\nnewborn kids to working moms, to seniors in nursing homes and assisted\nliving homes. Republicans have made it crystal clear that gutting\nMedicaid is one of their main strategies for paying for their massive\ntax cuts. Look no further than the House Republican proposal: a huge\namount of the cuts to Medicaid.\n  What do you tell people who need healthcare who are working people\nwho use Medicaid? What do you tell people who use community health\ncenters, which give efficient healthcare, Mr. Musk--efficient\nhealthcare? What do you tell a family who has a mom in a nursing home\nand that nursing home will get cut so mom has to come home and live\nwith that family? Build a new room in the house? But wood prices are\ngoing up if Trump puts in his tariffs. What do you tell them?\n  And remember, I would remind my Republican colleagues, when you tried\nthis in 2017--tax cuts for the rich, cutting healthcare, in that case\nthe ACA--America didn't like it. They are not going to like it again.\n  My amendment will ask Republicans: Do they really want to cut taxes\nfor billionaires so badly that they are willing to take healthcare away\nfrom kids, that they are willing to kick grandparents out of nursing\nhomes and abandon Americans with disability and take away healthcare\nfrom rural America? We will see what they do.\n  Now, Republicans can spin their agenda however they want. They\ncertainly will try to change the subject. They won't admit that their\ntax breaks are aimed at the wealthiest.\n  They can try to pass one bill. They can try to pass two bills. They\ncan try to pass 50 bills. It doesn't matter. They can slice and dice\ntheir policies in whatever order they wish. It doesn't matter in the\nend. Republican's North Star is singular, unchanging. They are trying\nto give their billionaire buddies a tax break and have you--the\nAmerican people, American families--pay the cost.\n  I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for\nthe quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield back all time.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                           Order of Business\n\n  Mr. THUNE. And I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments\nbe the first amendments in order; that the amendments be reported by\nnumber, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the\namendments: Schumer No. 454, Klobuchar No. 494, Merkley No. 473.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.\n\n                           Amendment No. 454\n\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 454 and ask\nthat it be reported my number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 454.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n     (Purpose: To prevent unwarranted tax cuts for the ultra-rich)\n\n       At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.\n\n       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate\n     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,\n     amendment between the Houses, or conference report that cuts\n     taxes for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income greater\n     than $1,000,000,000.\n       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or\n     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-\n     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative\n     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly\n     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of\n     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under\n     subsection (a).\n\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am proud to offer tonight's very first\namendment. It makes a simple proposal: No billionaire should get\nanother tax break. I ask my Republican colleagues, yes or no, do you\nbelieve billionaires should get another tax break or not? Vote yes on\nthis amendment if you think billionaires should not get another tax\nbreak.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the targeted budget blueprint before us\ntoday would secure the border, strengthen the military, and facilitate\nenergy independence, and take initial steps to get our fiscal house in\norder.\n  While the Finance Committee does have a $1 billion deficit decreasing\ninstruction, this is not a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill. The\ninstruction makes that clear.\n  To meet this instruction, the Finance Committee will reverse a Biden\nadministration nursing home rule that would increase taxpayer costs by\nbillions and jeopardize patient access to the long term, especially in\nour already underserved rural communities.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Mr. President, I have been advised that this amendment would be\ncorrosive to the privilege of the budget resolution if adopted. Because\nthe amendment contains matters that are inappropriate for a budget\nresolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's privilege.\n  Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act\nbecause it is not germane to the budget resolution.\n  Since the amendment does not meet a standard required by law, I raise\na point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the\nCongressional Budget Act of 1974.\n\n                            Motion to Waive\n\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the\nCongressional Budget Act, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and\nnays.\n\n                             Vote on Motion\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is\nnecessarily absent.\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n\n[[Page S1100]]\n\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n\n                             NOT VOTING--1\n\n     Warner\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Moody). On this vote, the yeas are 47,\nthe nays are 52.\n  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted\nin the affirmative, the motion is rejected.\n  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.\n  The Senator from Minnesota.\n\n                           Amendment No. 494\n\n  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 494, and\nask that it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Minnesota [Ms. Klobuchar] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 494.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n (Purpose: To stop tax cuts for the ultra-rich while families struggle\n                       to put food on the table)\n\n       At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY IN\n                   LIEU OF REDUCING FOOD COSTS.\n\n       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate\n     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,\n     amendment between the Houses, or conference report that cuts\n     taxes for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income greater\n     than $1,000,000,000 if the most recent change in the Consumer\n     Price Index shows an increase in food prices.\n       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or\n     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-\n     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative\n     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly\n     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of\n     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under\n     subsection (a).\n  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today with a commonsense\namendment, and that is that no one should be cutting taxes for\nbillionaires while food prices are rising.\n  Democrats and Republicans alike can agree that food prices are just\ntoo high. The price of eggs recently hit a record high of $4.95. That\nis 53 percent higher than a year ago. And wholesale egg prices have\nincreased 30 percent since the President took office to more than $8.\nThat means egg prices will continue to skyrocket.\n  And as an aside, accidentally firing frontline avian flu workers\nisn't going to change any of that.\n  Prices of other groceries like beef, fish, and fresh fruit have also\nincreased, with the most recent consumer price index showing overall\nfood prices rising.\n  Instead of focusing on $2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest\nAmericans, we should work together to lower food prices for Americans\nacross the country. That is why I call on my colleagues to support my\namendment, which will ensure that there are no tax cuts for\nbillionaires unless food prices are lowered for regular Americans.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, the targeted budget blueprint before us\ntoday would secure the border, strengthen the military, facilitate\nenergy independence, and take initial steps to get our fiscal house in\norder.\n  While the Finance Committee does have a $1 billion deficit-decreasing\ninstruction, this is not a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill. The\ninstruction makes that very clear. To meet this instruction, the\nFinance Committee will reverse a Biden administration nursing home rule\nthat would increase taxpayer costs by billions and jeopardize patient\naccess.\n  Madam President, I have been advised that this amendment would be\ncorrosive to the privilege of this budget resolution if adopted.\nBecause the amendment contains matter that is inappropriate for a\nbudget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's\nprivilege.\n  Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act\nbecause it is not germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment\ndoes not meet that standard required by law, I raise a point of order\nagainst the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional\nBudget Act of 1974.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.\n\n                            Motion to Waive\n\n  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the\nCongressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and\nnays.\n\n                             Vote on Motion\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.\n  Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--48\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, and the nays\nare 52.\n  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted\nin the affirmative, the motion is rejected.\n  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n\n                           Amendment No. 473\n\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 473 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 473.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the\nimpacts of hedge fund ownership of single-family homes and rent prices)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REDUCING\n                   THE IMPACTS OF HEDGE FUND OWNERSHIP OF SINGLE-\n                   FAMILY HOMES AND RENT PRICES.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     lowering rent for American families, which may include\n     reducing the single-family housing market share of large\n     single-family housing investors or addressing the impact of\n     these investors' activities on housing availability, housing\n     affordability, eviction rates, home maintenance, and\n     gentrification, by the amounts provided in such legislation\n     for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not\n     increase the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal\n     years 2025 through 2034.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, colleagues, the dream of home ownership\nis dying, and this is a big deal. Your home is your castle. This is a\nmajor source of wealth for middle-class families. And a factor killing\nthe dream of home ownership is private equity and hedge funds buying up\nhomes all across America.\n\n[[Page S1101]]\n\n  In fact, ordinary families can't compete with their all-cash, no\ninspection offers. They are driving up the prices to buy homes. They\nare driving up the rent. So today, let's take a step toward restoring\nthe dream of homeownership. This is a deficit-neutral reserve fund that\ncreates incentives for private-equity hedge funds to ease their way out\nof this market so that families can continue to be homeowners in\nAmerica, their children can continue to be homeowners.\n  Let's not let this dream die on our watch. I encourage you to vote\nfor this because houses should be homes for families, not a profit\ncenter for Wall Street.\n  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to\noppose this amendment. Here is why: They are putting the blame in the\nwrong place.\n  We all agree the housing prices have skyrocketed over the last 4\nyears. Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle aren't interested\nin new solutions. They are willing to place the blame anywhere except\nwhere it belongs.\n  The real culprit in the failed housing policies is the Biden\nadministration. Under the previous administration, rental costs rose 20\npercent. We should be discussing how to make housing more affordable\nfor more Americans. I plan to do just that at the Banking Housing and\nUrban Development Committee.\n  I urge my colleagues to work with me. Working with President Trump\nand Secretary Turner, we can achieve a housing comeback for the blue-\ncollar workers. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 473\n\n  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.\n  Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--48\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Hawley\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 473) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.\n\n                           Order of Business\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the\nfollowing amendments be the first amendments in order; that the\namendments be reported by number, with no amendments prior to a vote in\nrelation to the amendments: Warner No. 130, Murray No. 878,\nHickenlooper No. 925.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The Senator from Virginia.\n\n                           Amendment No. 130\n\n  Mr. WARNER. I thank the majority leader for having my amendment.\n  I would like to call up my amendment No. 130 and ask that it be\nreported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes amendment\n     numbered 130.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n (Purpose: To create a point of order against any reconciliation bill\n   that would not decrease the cost of housing for American families)\n\n         At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY RECONCILIATION BILL\n                   THAT WOULD NOT DECREASE THE COST OF HOUSING FOR\n                   AMERICAN FAMILIES.\n\n         (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the\n     Senate to consider a reconciliation bill or a reconciliation\n     resolution pursuant to section 310 of the Congressional\n     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 644), or\n     an amendment to, conference report on, or amendment between\n     the Houses in relation to such a bill or resolution, that\n     would not decrease the cost of housing for American families.\n         (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or\n     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-\n     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative\n     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly\n     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of\n     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under\n     subsection (a).\n\n  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment,\nwhich would prohibit any reconciliation bill that does not decrease the\ncost of housing for American families. I don't think there is any of us\nin this body that doesn't hear about the enormous rising cost of\nhousing.\n  Throughout the years, both under Biden and Trump, we kept saying: We\nare getting to housing next; we are getting to housing next. President\nTrump said, on day one, that he would come in and lower the cost of\nhousing. He has done nothing of the kind. Instead, we have 3.7 million\nAmericans who have a shortage of housing units, and 30 percent of all\nrenters pay more than half of their income in rental cost.\n  We have got to make sure we send a message to the American people\nthat we are going to take on the rising cost of housing. One way we can\ndo that is supporting my amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.\n  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I urge my colleagues to oppose this\namendment. Democrats are the ones who caused the record-high inflation\nand soaring consumer prices with their reckless partisan spending. The\ncost of everything is up 20 percent, and the cost of housing went up 40\npercent during Joe Biden's Presidency.\n  Reducing illegal immigration and cutting energy costs through\nreconciliation are critical components of reducing costs at the\ncheckout aisle.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Mr. President, this amendment, however, is not in order. If adopted\nit would jeopardize the privileged status of the budget resolution and\ncould derail our efforts to use reconciliation.\n  Since the amendment does not meet the standard required by law, I\nraise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of\nthe Congressional Budget Act of 1974.\n  I urge--I urge--my colleagues to just vote no.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.\n\n                            Motion To Waive\n\n  Mr. WARNER. While I have great respect for my friend from South\nCarolina, and I do hope we can find some common ground on housing,\npursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to\nwaive and ask for the yeas and nays.\n\n                             Vote on Motion\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.\n  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n\n[[Page S1102]]\n\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--53\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are\n53.\n  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted\nin the affirmative, the motion is rejected.\n  The motion was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the\namendment falls.\n  The Senator from Washington.\n\n                           Amendment No. 878\n\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 878 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 878.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To strike the reconciliation instructions and create a\nreserve fund to implement a bipartisan, multi-year agreement to provide\n up to $171,000,000,000 in discretionary funding for defense and up to\n$171,000,000,000 in discretionary funding for other programs, accounts,\n     and activities to address border, veterans, farmers, food and\n              nutrition, disaster relief, and other needs)\n\n       On page 45, strike line 10 and all that follows through\n     page 52, line 19, and insert the following:\n\n                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS\n\n     SEC. 3001. RESERVE FUND FOR BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON\n                   DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.\n\n       (a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of\n     the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or\n     committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this\n     resolution, make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,\n     and, consistent with section 4004, make adjustments to\n     address revisions to the statutory caps on discretionary\n     spending for one or more bills, joint resolutions,\n     amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or\n     conference reports that provide up to an additional\n     $171,000,000,000 in discretionary budget authority for\n     defense over the period of fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year\n     2028 and up to an additional $171,000,000,000 in budget\n     authority for other discretionary spending over the period of\n     fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2028.\n       (b) House of Representatives.--The Chairman of the\n     Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives may\n     revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, and make\n     adjustments to address revisions to the statutory caps on\n     discretionary spending for one or more bills, joint\n     resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses,\n     motions, or conference reports that provide up to an\n     additional $171,000,000,000 in discretionary budget authority\n     for defense over the period of fiscal year 2025 to fiscal\n     year 2028 and up to an additional $171,000,000,000 in budget\n     authority for other discretionary spending over the period of\n     fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2028.\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, my amendment does two things.\n  First of all, it strikes the reconciliation instructions. Secondly,\nit creates a reserve fund to implement a bipartisan, multiyear\nagreement to provide $171 billion in discretionary funding for both\ndefense and nondefense.\n  Democrats do agree we need more resources to invest in our national\nsecurity and address the challenges at the border and counter China,\nbut we cannot leave the rest of the budget in the dust while we do\nthat. So let's deliver investments to do both and make sure we also\nsupport our veterans, agriculture, disaster response, biomedical\nresearch, FAA, childcare, and more.\n  These are all big challenges. Democrats stand ready to work with our\ncolleagues, as we have in the past, including through our bipartisan\nefforts on the Appropriations Committee. But that can only happen if\nthe Republicans are willing to work with us, and working with us means\nactually working with us, not telling us to accept Elon Musk's cutting\n$1 trillion in fiscal year 2025 to our priorities, which is assumed in\nthis Republican plan, and, at the same time, spending $342 billion on\ntheir own priorities. It also means not sitting on your hands--\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. --while Elon and Trump rip up our bipartisan laws. I\nurge my colleagues--\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?\n  The Senator from South Carolina.\n  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, yeah, this is a big-time no. They are\nrewriting the budget resolution. They want to take half of the $342\nbillion and spend it on things not related to what we want to do.\n  We want to secure the border. We want to give President Trump $175\nbillion to secure the border through Homeland Security and Judiciary,\nand we will figure out how to spend it. We want to do $150 billion for\ndefense because the world is on fire. We want to do $20 billion for the\nCoast Guard to help us become safer.\n  They are rewriting the resolution. They are taking half the money we\nhave dedicated for border security and defense and spending it on more\nnondefense stuff. We are tired of that. We are not going to do that\nanymore. We are going to defend America in this resolution. We are not\ngoing to take half the money and spend it on more social spending. We\nare going to defend our border. We are going to make the military more\nlethal, and we are going to help the Coast Guard, and we are going to\npay for it--something you would never do. So vote no.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 878\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--53\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 878) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCORMICK). The majority whip.\n\n                           Order of Business\n\n  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the\nfollowing amendments be the next amendments in order; that the\namendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to\na vote in relation to the amendments. The first is Bennet No. 540,\nfollowed by Schiff No. 316, then Sullivan No. 1029, Schumer No. 776,\nOssoff No. 407, Wyden No. 308, Baldwin No. 276, and Reed No. 172.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  The majority whip.\n  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask to amend the request that it be\nthe Wyden No. 1156.\n\n[[Page S1103]]\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.\n\n                           Amendment No. 925\n\n  Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 925 and\nask that it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The bill clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Hickenlooper] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 925.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n  (Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would\nraise energy costs for Americans, including higher monthly electricity\n      bills, building material expenses, and transportation costs)\n\n       At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST RAISING ENERGY COSTS FOR\n                   AMERICANS.\n\n       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate\n     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,\n     amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would\n     raise energy costs for Americans.\n       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or\n     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-\n     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative\n     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly\n     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of\n     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under\n     subsection (a).\n\n  Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, the United States is producing more\nenergy right now than any country in the history of the world. We are\nin the middle of an energy revolution. We got here by embracing an\n``all of the above'' approach to energy, including solar, wind, and\ngeothermal, to keep prices as low as possible for working people.\n  Most of the energy that is ready to go today is clean and affordable.\nAny action that blocks the rollout of that will raise prices for\nworking Americans. It is going to kill jobs and seek complete control\nof emerging industries in China.\n  In fact, in the last few years, we have passed bills that make\nhistoric investments in American-made energy. These bills create more\nthan 400,000 good-paying jobs, and yet there is an effort by this\nadministration to trash the progress we have made.\n  These actions will balloon energy bills for families--at least 240\nbucks a year for working families everywhere--at a time when they are\nstruggling to afford eggs at the grocery just as inflation begins to\nrise again.\n  Rather than limiting energy or firing critical government employees,\nlet's welcome our new energy future, a future marked by resilient\nenergy, rebuilt by American innovation for cheaper, more reliable\nenergy for every Coloradan in America. A simple yes-or-no point of\norder will ensure nothing in the budget will increase energy costs for\nworking families. How could you vote against that?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reducing energy costs for all Americans\nstarts with reducing rent pay to develop our energy resources. If we\nbuilt more gas pipelines, if we built more powerplants, more\ntransmission lines, it will lower costs for consumers across the\ncountry.\n  Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, spent\ndecades attempting to force unreliable, expensive nonbaseload sources\nof power--things like solar, wind, and battery storage--not using the\nfree market, using mandates and subsidies. That is not how we do\nthings. It doesn't actually reduce costs.\n  This just forces American taxpayers to subsidize those industries. If\nwe end the clean energy mandates and cut through the redtape that is\nstifling the energy development, we can make energy affordable and\nreliable for all Americans.\n  But, look, since the amendment does not meet the standard required by\nlaw, I raise a point of order against the amendment under section\n305(b)(2)of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.\n\n                            Motion to Waive\n\n  Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the\nCongressional Budget Act, I move to waive and I ask for the yeas and\nnays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.\n  Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk called the roll.\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--53\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, and the nays\nare 53.\n  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted\nin the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.\n  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.\n  The Senator from Colorado.\n\n                           Amendment No. 540\n\n  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 540 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 540.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\nreinstating the fired Federal employees at the Forest Service, National\n Park Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of\n                            Land Management)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO FEDERAL\n                   LAND MANAGEMENT.\n\n        The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     Federal land management, which may include reinstating the\n     fired Federal employees at the Forest Service, National Park\n     Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau\n     of Land Management, including positions responsible for,\n     among other things, wildfire mitigation, range and timber\n     management, habitat conservation, outdoor recreation, or\n     other uses that generate revenue for the Federal Government,\n     by the amounts provided in such legislation for those\n     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase\n     the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2025\n     through 2034.\n\n  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, this amendment reinstates the thousands of\nfired National Park Service, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,\nand Bureau of Land Management employees.\n  Our public lands are the crown jewel of America. With drought,\nwildfire, and record visitation, our public lands are facing more\npressures than ever before. Now is not the time to fire dedicated\npublic servants who perform wildfire mitigation, manage visitors, clear\ntrails, permit grazing and mining and oil and gas operations.\n  Fewer boots on the ground means more wildfire risk and less access to\nour public lands and puts enormous burden on communities across the\ncountry, from Alaska to North Carolina, to Maine.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.\n  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, article II of the U.S. Constitution declares\nthe\n\n[[Page S1104]]\n\nPresident of the United States to be the person who holds the executive\npower. He has the discretion to hire and fire those who work in\nexecutive branch Agencies.\n  Now, for decades, staffing for the Federal land and wildlife\nmanagement and outdoor recreation Agencies has been a bipartisan issue.\nThis amendment does not do that. Instead, it attempts to turn Federal\nland management Agency employment into a political football.\n  As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I\nlook forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle\nto address issues affecting Federal land management and Federal land\nmanagement employees, including finding innovative solutions for their\nhousing, working to ensure the concessionaires have flexibility and are\nnot held up in endless paperwork, and giving land managers flexibility\nto work with their counties and gateway communities to hire qualified\nemployees and work with gateway community businesses.\n  This is not that amendment. This goes the wrong way, and I oppose it.\n  Mr. BENNET. Do I have any time left?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six seconds remaining.\n  Mr. BENNET. I urge my opponents to vote for this amendment.\n  I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  I yield back my second.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 540\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--48\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murkowski\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 540) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from California.\n\n                           Amendment No. 316\n\n  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 316 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The bill clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from California [Mr. Schiff] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 316.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n   supporting Federal wildland firefighters and associated personnel)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   SUPPORTING FEDERAL WILDLAND FIREFIGHTERS AND\n                   ASSOCIATED PERSONNEL.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     supporting Federal wildland firefighters or other Federal\n     personnel necessary for hazardous fuels management and\n     community wildfire resilience, which may include provisions\n     to recruit and retain such personnel, paying such personnel a\n     fair wage and providing industry-standard leave policies\n     following wildfire deployments, supporting the health and\n     wellbeing of such personnel, exempting such personnel from\n     hiring freezes, or reinstating the employment of such\n     personnel the positions of whom were terminated during\n     calendar year 2025, by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I stand here on behalf of Western States\ncolleagues--Senators Padilla, Heinrich, Lujan, Bennet, and\nHickenlooper--to ask this Chamber to take a clear stand on behalf of\nthe firefighters who help fight and prevent wildfires.\n  Wildfires don't discriminate. They hit red States and blue States.\nEven as deadly devastating wildfires were burning in L.A. County,\nPresident Trump adopted a freeze on hiring so widespread that it is\nblocking the Forest Service from onboarding the seasonal firefighters\nwe require to prevent future fires.\n  Not only that, President Trump has also empowered an unelected\nbillionaire to run rampant through the ranks of our public servants,\nnot with a scalpel but with a hatchet. As a result, firefighters who\nhad just finished weekends of around-the-clock shifts fighting these\ndangerous fires were given a thank-you note from their Commander in\nChief that said: Please quit.\n  Please quit--this was the reward our firefighters got.\n  Our amendment would make it very clear that we are committed to\nreversing these cuts to the ranks of wildland firefighters.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.\n  The Senator from Montana.\n  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to oppose this\namendment.\n  Reserve funds can accomplish nothing beyond political messaging, are\nunnecessary, and, frankly, distract or delay the budgeting process.\n  This amendment would, in no way, impact the great firefighters who\nfight our Nation's fires out West. These firefighters deserve\nrecognition. They deserve fair pay. In fact, we have the bill that does\nthat, the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act. It is\nbipartisan. It permanently addresses securing increases in their wages.\nIf we want to support our wildland firefighters, let's pass this bill\nand get it on President Trump's desk.\n  Republicans are committed to protecting our environment and our\npublic lands without suffocating the U.S. economy. I urge my colleagues\nto do the same and oppose this amendment.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 316\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.\n  Mr. SCHIFF. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--48\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Sullivan\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 316) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.\n\n[[Page S1105]]\n\n                           Amendment No. 1029\n\n  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1029 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 1029.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n                   protecting Medicare and Medicaid)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   PROTECTING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     protecting the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social\n     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), which may include\n     strengthening and improving Medicaid for the most vulnerable\n     populations, and extending the life of the Federal Hospital\n     Insurance Trust Fund, by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is going to be a late night with a\nlot of votes. I want to take this opportunity to demonstrate our strong\nRepublican support for Medicaid and Medicare right now.\n  My amendment is very simple. It says we are going to strengthen and\nimprove Medicaid for the most vulnerable populations and strengthen\nMedicare so that it is available for years to come.\n  Now, I know my Democratic colleagues are going to try tonight to use\nscare tactics to message that Republicans don't support these vital\nprograms, but we do. These are critical programs that Republicans\nsupport. Heck, President Trump has repeatedly said that these programs\nare not going to be touched. People rely on Medicare and Medicaid.\nAlaskans rely on Medicare and Medicaid, and we are here to strongly\nsupport them. We should all agree that we want to weed out waste,\nfraud, and abuse in our healthcare system, including in Medicare and\nMedicaid, and we must maintain our safety net programs. We can do both\nand make them stronger.\n  So I hope every single Member of the Senate tonight votes to support\nmy simple amendment, which would strengthen both Medicaid and Medicare\nfor the most vulnerable Americans. I ask for everybody's vote.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition. This amendment claims\nto protect Medicare and Medicaid, but it does neither.\n  In particular, the Medicaid language seeks to talk about a group\ncalled the most vulnerable. Obviously, we care about them, but the\nlanguage of the Sullivan amendment would leave millions behind, and we\ndon't want to go there. The language in this amendment is code for\nkicking Americans with Medicaid coverage off their health insurance if\nthey are not sick enough, not poor enough, or not disabled enough. This\namendment does nothing to stop Republicans from cutting these essential\nhealthcare programs, kicking millions of Americans off their coverage,\nall to pay for the tax cuts of billionaires.\n  I urge opposition.\n  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, read the amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.\n  Mr. SULLIVAN. We support Medicare and Medicaid. It is that simple.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 1029\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--51\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n\n                                NAYS--49\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Curtis\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lee\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n  The amendment (No. 1029) was agreed to.\n\n                           Amendment No. 776\n\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 776 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The bill clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 776.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n  (Purpose: To prevent tax cuts for the wealthy if a single dollar of\n                        Medicaid funding is cut)\n\n       At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST MEDICAID CUTS TO FUND TAX\n                   BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.\n\n       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate\n     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,\n     amendment between the Houses, or conference report that--\n       (1) cuts taxes for taxpayers with adjusted gross income\n     above $1,000,000,000; and\n       (2) reduces coverage for people in Medicaid, shifts\n     coverage or funding responsibility to states, or includes a\n     net reduction in Federal funding for Medicaid.\n       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or\n     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-\n     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative\n     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly\n     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of\n     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under\n     subsection (a).\n\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It allows\nno billionaires to have any tax cuts if a single dollar of Medicaid\nfunding is cut. The American people need to know where Senate\nRepublicans stand on Medicaid.\n  On Tuesday, Donald Trump claimed he is opposed to Medicaid cuts.\nThen, Wednesday, he supported it. And, today, he doubles down and even\nopened the door to Medicare. He is flip-flopping left and right. So the\nAmerican people deserve to know: What about Senate Republicans? Where\ndo they stand?\n  Cutting Medicaid to pay for billionaire tax cuts would be a gut punch\nto working people. Medicaid serves nearly 80 million people across the\ncountry in States red and blue, from our sickest kids to our infirm in\nnursing homes and vulnerable seniors.\n  These are the people we should focus on--kids, seniors, and rural\nAmericans--not billionaires. They are doing well enough already.\n  My amendment will ask Republicans: Do they really want to cut taxes\nfor billionaires so badly they are willing to take healthcare away from\nkids and kick grandparents out of nursing homes? How are you going to\nvote, colleagues?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the Democrats know very well that this\ntargeted budget blueprint does not cut Medicaid or Medicare. The\nblueprint before us focuses on securing the border, strengthening the\nmilitary, facilitating energy independence, and taking the initial\nsteps to get our fiscal house in order.\n  To meet this instruction, the Finance Committee will do one thing and\none thing only, and that is reverse a Biden administration nursing home\nrule that would increase taxpayer costs\n\n[[Page S1106]]\n\nby billions and jeopardize patient access to long-term care, especially\nin already underserved rural communities.\n  Mr. President, I have been advised that this amendment would be\ncorrosive to the privilege of this budget resolution if adopted.\nBecause the amendment contains matter that is inappropriate for the\nbudget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's\nprivilege.\n  Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act\nbecause it is not germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment\ndoes not meet that standard required by law, I raised a point of order\nagainst the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional\nBudget Act of 1974.\n\n                            Motion to Waive\n\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the\nCongressional Budget Act, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and\nnays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.\n  Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk called the roll.\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--49\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Hawley\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--51\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Marshall). On this vote, the yeas are 49,\nthe nays are 51.\n  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted\nin the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.\n  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.\n  The Senator from Georgia.\n\n                           Amendment No. 407\n\n  Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, the momentum that is growing in Washington\nto gut the Medicaid program is alarming my constituents in Georgia, and\nI call up my amendment No. 407 and ask it to be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Ossoff] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 407.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n    protecting access to maternal and pediatric health care through\n                               Medicaid)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   PROTECTING ACCESS TO MATERNAL AND PEDIATRIC\n                   HEALTH CARE THROUGH MEDICAID.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to access\n     to health care, which may include legislation protecting\n     access to maternal and pediatric health care through Medicaid\n     by the amounts provided in such legislation for those\n     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase\n     the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2025\n     through 2034.\n\n  Mr. OSSOFF. The sheer number of people affected: In Georgia 5 out of\n7 seniors in nursing homes are covered by Medicaid; nearly 50 percent\nof all births are covered by Medicaid; two out of five children in\nGeorgia are covered by Medicaid. I was disappointed to see just moments\nago the majority adopt an amendment to lay the foundation for deep cuts\nto Medicaid.\n  I hope we can build bipartisan support for my amendment to ensure\nthat maternal and children's healthcare through Medicaid is protected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, once again the targeted budget blueprint\nbefore us today is not about cutting Medicare or Medicaid. It doesn't\ndeal with Medicare or Medicaid. It deals with securing the border,\nstrengthening the military, facilitating the energy independence of our\ncountry and taking the initial steps to put our fiscal house in order.\n  While the Finance Committee does have a $1 million deficit decreasing\ninstruction, this is not a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill, and\nthe claims that we have heard continuously tonight, to me, seem just to\nbe the politics of fear in the face of trying to deal with our Nation's\ncritical issues.\n  To meet this instruction, the Finance Committee will reverse a Biden\nadministration nursing home rule that would increase taxpayer cost by\nbillions, jeopardize patient access to long-term care, especially in\nour already underserved rural communities.\n  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment today, as it is\nnot relevant to the Finance Committee's instruction.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 407\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, the vote is whether to protect maternal\nand pediatric healthcare through Medicaid.\n  I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--49\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Hawley\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--51\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 407) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Oregon.\n\n                           Amendment No. 1156\n\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1156 and ask that\nit be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 1156.\n  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of\nAmendments.'')\n\n =========================== NOTE ===========================\n\n  On page S1106, February 20, 2025, third column, the following\nappears: Amendment No. 1156 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up\namendment No. 1156 and ask that it be reported by number. The\nPRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The senior assistant\nlegislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Oregon [Mr.\nWyden] proposes an amendment numbered 1156.\n\n  The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 1156\nMr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1156 and ask\nthat it be reported by number. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk\nwill report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as\nfollows: The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment\nnumbered 1156. (The amendment is printed in today's Record under\n``Text of Amendments.'')\n\n ========================= END NOTE =========================\n\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment is simple, it is direct,\nand, I believe, the only legislation tonight that is comprehensive on\nhealthcare, that protects Medicaid and Medicare and the Affordable Care\nAct. It does that by taking cuts to these vital programs off the table\nin the Senate.\n  So what that means is, if you pass this amendment and the House sends\nus a budget resolution with severe cuts to healthcare, the Senate will\nhave gone on record as being against the cuts.\n  Let's not jeopardize the health of millions of Americans. Support the\namendment.\n\n[[Page S1107]]\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, once again, I think I have said this 10\ntimes tonight. I will say it again. The budget blueprint we are working\non does not deal with Medicare and Medicaid. It is to secure the\nborder, strengthen the military, and facilitate our energy\nindependence.\n  The instruction given to the Finance Committee deals solely with\nreversing a Biden administration nursing home rule that would increase\ntaxpayer costs by billions and jeopardize patient access to long-term\ncare, especially in our rural communities.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Mr. President, I have also been advised that this amendment, too,\nwould be corrosive to the privilege of the budget resolution if\nadopted. Because the amendment contains matter that is inappropriate\nfor a budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's\nprivilege.\n  Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act\nbecause it is not germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment\ndoes not meet that standard required by law, I raise a point of order\nagainst the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional\nBudget Act of 1974.\n\n =========================== NOTE ===========================\n\n  On page S1107, February 20, 2025, first column, the following\nappears: Since the amendment does not meet that standard required\nby law, I raise a point of order against the amendment under\nsection 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1973.\n\n  The online Record has been corrected to read: Since the\namendment does not meet that standard required by law, I raise a\npoint of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of\nthe Congressional Budget Act of 1974.\n\n ========================= END NOTE =========================\n\n  Mr. WYDEN. How much time do I have remaining?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 24 seconds remaining.\n  Mr. WYDEN. I will use my 24 seconds to say the reality is the House\nis looking at a budget in the Energy and Commerce Committee with the\nprospect of significant cuts in healthcare. That is why I want us to go\non record. If they send us something that cuts healthcare severely, we\nwill be on record as protecting healthcare.\n\n                            Motion to Waive\n\n  Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget\nAct, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--53\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are\n53.\n  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen not having voted in the\naffirmative, the motion is rejected.\n  The motion was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the\namendment falls.\n  The Senator from Wisconsin.\n\n                           Amendment No. 276\n\n  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 276, to\nprotect seniors relying on Medicaid, and ask that it be reported by\nnumber.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Wisconsin [Ms. Baldwin] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 276.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n  (Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would\n take away health care from seniors, including those receiving care in\n          nursing homes, through cuts to the Medicaid program)\n\n       At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:\n\n     SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD TAKE\n                   AWAY HEALTH CARE FROM SENIORS, INCLUDING THOSE\n                   RECEIVING CARE IN NURSING HOMES, THROUGH CUTS\n                   TO THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.\n\n       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate\n     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,\n     amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would\n     make changes to the Medicaid program under title XIX of the\n     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) unless the\n     Director of the Congressional Budget Office certifies that\n     such changes would not result in lower coverage rates,\n     reduced benefits, or decreased affordability for seniors,\n     including seniors who are residents of nursing facilities or\n     who receive services in their own homes.\n       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or\n     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-\n     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative\n     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly\n     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of\n     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under\n     subsection (a).\n\n  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, Medicaid is a lifeline for 8 million\nseniors who rely on the program to access healthcare. Medicaid helps\nalmost two-thirds of all nursing home residents have a safe roof over\ntheir heads.\n  Republicans would like us to believe that their proposed cuts are\ntackling waste, fraud, and abuse. But make no mistake, stripping away\nhealthcare and nursing home funding for our parents and grandparents is\nnot reform nor is it eliminating waste. Rather, it is a deliberate\nchoice to give tax breaks for their billionaire friends instead of\nensuring that seniors across the country have access to the long-term\ncare and support they need. It is a deliberate choice to prioritize tax\ncuts for billionaires over ensuring that nursing homes can keep their\ndoors open. It is a deliberate choice to take away healthcare from\nmillions of seniors.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I will just say what I said before: This\namendment violates the Congressional Budget Act because it is not\ngermane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment does not meet\nthat standard, I raise a point of order against the amendment under\nsection 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.\n\n                            Motion to Waive\n\n  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the\nCongressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and\nnays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.\n  Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--48\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). On this vote, the yeas are 48, the\nnays are 52.\n\n[[Page S1108]]\n\n  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted\nin the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.\n  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.\n  The majority leader.\n\n                           Order of Business\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following\namendments be the next amendments in order; that the amendments be\nreported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in\nrelation to the amendments: Reed-Shaheen No. 299, Paul No. 999, Slotkin\nNo. 664, Van Hollen No. 233, and Shaheen No. 436.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The Senator from Rhode Island.\n\n                           Amendment No. 172\n\n  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment\nNo. 172, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Lujan and\nAlsobrooks, and ask that it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 172.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n  (Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would\n          reduce Medicare and Medicaid benefits for Americans)\n\n       At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD\n                   REDUCE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID BENEFITS FOR\n                   AMERICANS.\n\n       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate\n     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,\n     amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would\n     reduce Medicare or Medicaid benefits for working-class and\n     middle-income Americans.\n       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or\n     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-\n     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative\n     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly\n     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of\n     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under\n     subsection (a).\n\n  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the other day, President Donald Trump said:\n\n       Medicare, Medicaid--none of that stuff is going to be\n     touched.\n\n  If that statement had any truth behind it, then my colleagues on the\nother side of the aisle should be voting for this amendment, which\ncalls for a point of order against any legislation that cuts Medicaid\nor Medicare.\n  Medicare serves 67 million seniors and people with disabilities, and\nnearly 80 million Americans rely on Medicaid. Failing to pass this\namendment will be a signal that these programs are on the chopping\nblock.\n  This vote will be a test for all of us, particularly my Republican\ncolleagues. Are we going to protect Medicare and Medicaid or are they,\nmy Republican colleagues, going to use this as a piggy bank for tax\ncuts for the wealthy?\n  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I repeat what I have said before. Because\nthis amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act, it is not germane\nto the budget resolution. Since the amendment does not meet that\nstandard required by law, I raise a point of order against the\namendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of\n1974.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.\n\n                            Motion to Waive\n\n  Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional\nBudget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.\n  Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--49\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Hawley\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--51\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are\n51.\n  Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen having not voted in the\naffirmative, the motion is rejected.\n  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.\n  The Senator from Rhode Island.\n\n                          Additional Cosponsor\n\n  Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I call up my amendment, I ask that\nSenator Coons be added as a cosponsor of the Reed-Shaheen amendment No.\n299.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                           Amendment No. 299\n\n  Mr. REED. I call up my amendment No. 299 and ask that it be reported\nby number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. REED] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 299.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n(Purpose: To ensure continued United States support for the Government\nof Ukraine to stand firm against aggression by the Government of Russia\n                               in Europe)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   SUPPORTING UKRAINE.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     strengthening support for the Government of Ukraine, which\n     may include legislation that authorizes and funds assistance,\n     expands training and intelligence-sharing, accelerates\n     defense production and deliveries, ensures that negotiations\n     about the future of Ukraine include representatives of the\n     Government of Ukraine, or otherwise supports Ukraine's\n     defense against Russia's illegal war, by the amounts provided\n     in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment ensures continuous support\nfor the government of Ukraine to stand firm against Russian aggression.\n  For 3 years, Ukraine has fought tooth and nail for its very survival.\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. The Senate is not in order.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.\n  Mr. REED. Heroically withstanding barbaric attacks and unspeakable\nviolence by Russia.\n  The Ukrainians have achieved hard-won victories and have refused to\nbend to Putin's demands, but they require continued U.S. support to\nsustain their progress.\n  In those same 3 years, in this body, we have heard extensive\ncriticism of the Biden administration's Ukraine policy. They were not\ngoing fast enough. They were not allowing Ukraine to be aggressive\nenough. The strategy is not enabling Ukraine to win on the battlefield.\nAnd yet, now, when the Trump administration is cutting deals with Putin\nand walking away from Ukraine, we do not hear much at all--a deafening\nsilence. What has happened?\n  Well, regardless of what has happened, we cannot abandon Ukraine. We\n\n[[Page S1109]]\n\ncannot rush into a negotiation with a brutal dictator who we know will\nnot stop at Ukraine. He will next turn his sights on NATO allies--\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.\n  Mr. REED. We must support this amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.\n  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment and\nurge my colleagues to oppose it. There is no greater supporter of\nUkraine in this Senate than I am, but this is not the right vehicle.\n  This is a budget to add for national security investment, missile\ndefense, shipbuilding, munition, cybersecurity, taking care of our\ntroops, and protecting our borders.\n  There is a place to talk about Ukraine. It is not this budget. But\npassage of this amendment, though Members might wish to, will make it\nharder to pass this very valuable budget, and that is what this is\nabout. That is why even I, a huge supporter of what we are doing in\nUkraine, have to vote no on this, so we can pass a good budget.\n  I urge a ``no'' vote.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 299\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Mr. REED. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--53\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 299) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.\n\n                           Amendment No. 999\n\n  Mr. PAUL. I call up my amendment No. 999 and ask that it be reported\nby number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 999.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n(Purpose: To require an adequate amount of deficit reduction as part of\n                            reconciliation)\n\n       On page 45, strike line 10 and all that follows through\n     page 49, line 23, and insert the following:\n\n                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION\n\n     SEC. 2001. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.\n\n       (a) Committee on Agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture\n     of the House of Representatives shall report changes in laws\n     within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less\n     than $230,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025\n     through 2034.\n       (b) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed\n     Services of the House of Representatives shall report changes\n     in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by\n     not more than $150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years\n     2025 through 2034.\n       (c) Committee on Education and Workforce.--The Committee on\n     Education and Workforce of the House of Representatives shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce\n     the deficit by not less than $330,000,000,000 for the period\n     of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (d) Committee on Energy and Commerce.--The Committee on\n     Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce\n     the deficit by not less than $880,000,000,000 for the period\n     of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (e) Committee on Natural Resources.--The Committee on\n     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce\n     the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (f) Committee on Homeland Security.--The Committee on\n     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase\n     the deficit by not more than $175,000,000,000 for the period\n     of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (g) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the\n     Judiciary of the House of Representatives shall report\n     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the\n     deficit by not more than $175,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (h) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.--The\n     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House\n     of Representatives shall report changes in laws within its\n     jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less than\n     $10,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (i) Committee on Financial Services.--The Committee on\n     Financial Services of the House of Representatives shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce\n     the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (j) Submissions.--In the House of Representatives, not\n     later than March 7, 2025, the committees named in the\n     subsections of this section shall submit their\n     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the House\n     of Representatives to carry out this section.\n\n     SEC. 2002. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.\n\n       (a) Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.--The\n     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the\n     Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction\n     that reduce the deficit by not less than $230,000,000,000 for\n     the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (b) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed\n     Services of the Senate shall report changes in laws within\n     its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than\n     $150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (c) Committee on Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban\n     Affairs.--The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban\n     Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its\n     jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less than\n     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (d) Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.--\n     The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the\n     Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction\n     that reduce the deficit by not less than $120,000,000,000 for\n     the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (e) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.--The\n     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce\n     the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (f) Committee on Environment and Public Works.--The\n     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase\n     the deficit by not more than $1,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (g) Committee on Finance.--The Committee on Finance of the\n     Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction\n     that reduce the deficit by not less than $760,000,000,000 for\n     the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (h) Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.--\n     The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of\n     the Senate shall report changes in laws within its\n     jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less than\n     $330,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (i) Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental\n     Affairs.--The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental\n     Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its\n     jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than\n     $175,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (j) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the\n     Judiciary of the Senate shall report changes in laws within\n     its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than\n     $175,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (k) Submissions.--In the Senate, not later than March 7,\n     2025, the committees named in the subsections of this section\n     shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the\n     Budget of the Senate. Upon receiving all such\n     recommendations, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out\n     all such recommendations without any substantive revision.\n\n  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the budget bill before us instructs the\nSenate to find $342 billion in new spending. The budget bill, as\nwritten, is a spending bill. My amendment would add language to cut\nspending. The cuts would\n\n[[Page S1110]]\n\ntotal $1.5 trillion. These cuts mirror the cuts from the House budget\nresolution that has been passed.\n  This year, the deficit will exceed $2 trillion. It is a fiscal\nimperative that Congress begin to cut spending.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, all evening we have been pointing out\nthat, with this bill, families lose and billionaires win. That is\ncertainly put onto steroids with this amendment because this amendment\nwould add a quarter trillion dollars directed at the SNAP program. It\nwould add a third of a trillion dollars directed at reducing the\nviability of student loans, and almost three-quarters of a trillion\ndollars to devastate Medicaid--programs that families depend on to be\nable to thrive, to live in the middle class, to pursue opportunity.\n  I encourage everyone, if you don't want to have a bill in which\nfamilies lose, vote no.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 999\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 76, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--24\n\n     Barrasso\n     Britt\n     Cassidy\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Hagerty\n     Husted\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moreno\n     Paul\n     Risch\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Sheehy\n     Tuberville\n     Young\n\n                                NAYS--76\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Banks\n     Bennet\n     Blackburn\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Boozman\n     Budd\n     Cantwell\n     Capito\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cornyn\n     Cortez Masto\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Fischer\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hassan\n     Hawley\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Hoeven\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lankford\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     Merkley\n     Moran\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Ricketts\n     Rosen\n     Rounds\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Scott (SC)\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wicker\n     Wyden\n  The amendment (No. 999) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Britt). The Senator from Michigan.\n\n                           Amendment No. 664\n\n  Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam President, I am not enjoying my first vote-arama,\nbut I do call up my amendment No. 664 and ask that it be reported by\nnumber.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Slotkin] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 664.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\npreventing reductions in funding and staffing necessary to respond to,\n                    control, and prevent avian flu)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   PREVENTING REDUCTIONS IN FUNDING AND STAFFING\n                   NECESSARY TO RESPOND TO, CONTROL, AND PREVENT\n                   THE HIGHLY PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     preventing the spread of animal diseases, which may include\n     prohibiting reductions to funding and staff (including\n     veterinarians) that monitor, respond to, control, mitigate,\n     and prevent the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza,\n     by the amounts provided in such legislation for those\n     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase\n     the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2025\n     through 2034.\n\n  Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam President, my amendment is simple. It prohibits\ncuts to the funding and staffing necessary to respond to and control\navian flu. This should be an easy no-brainer. Avian flu is jumping\nbetween species. We are culling thousands of birds, and egg prices are\nthe highest they have ever been in U.S. history.\n  I want to believe that this body should be able to agree that a\nbiohazard that impacts every single one of our States should be\nsomething that we maintain funding for. It is our job to protect our\nconstituents. That is basic. Avian flu is a threat. You know it. I know\nit. The world knows it.\n  I urge you to put partisanship aside. Vote for this very simple\namendment. Maintain funding and staffing on avian flu.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.\n  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to amendment No.\n664.\n  Agriculture Secretary Rollins and the White House have made clear\nthat addressing avian flu is a top priority.\n  I share my colleague from Michigan's concerns about avian flu, but\nthis is not the appropriate venue for policy discussions on animal\ndisease. This budget resolution is focused on securing the border,\nstrengthening the military, and bolstering American energy\nindependence.\n  I look forward to working with the Senator from Michigan, a fellow\nMember whom we are glad to have on the Agriculture Committee--a new\nmember--to address animal disease threats in the farm bill.\n  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 664\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--53\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 664) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.\n\n                           Amendment No. 233\n\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 233 and\nask that it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Van Hollen], for himself and\n     Ms. Hirono, proposes an amendment numbered 233.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would cut\n      funding from the school lunch or school breakfast programs)\n\n       At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CUT\n                   FUNDING FROM THE SCHOOL LUNCH OR SCHOOL\n                   BREAKFAST PROGRAMS.\n\n       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate\n     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,\n     amendment between the Houses, or conference report that cuts\n     funding from the school lunch program under the Richard B.\n\n[[Page S1111]]\n\n     Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) or\n     the school breakfast program established under section 4 of\n     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773).\n       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or\n     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-\n     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative\n     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly\n     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of\n     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under\n     subsection (a).\n\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I offer this amendment with my\ncolleague Senator Hirono. It is very straightforward. It creates a\npoint of order against any legislation that would cut funding from the\nNational School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program.\n  I think our colleagues know that nearly 14 million American children\nwere hungry last year. One in five kids doesn't know where their next\nmeal will come from or what it will be. So let's ensure that those kids\nget healthy meals and can focus on their education and their studies\ninstead of their stomachs.\n  Madam President, 91 percent of public schools participate in the USDA\nmeals programs. Over half of our kids are eligible for free and reduced\nlunch programs. They provide breakfast programs for over 2 billion of\nthem a year.\n  So colleagues, let's not abandon those kids in order to provide tax\ncuts for Elon Musk and very rich people. I urge the adoption of our\namendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to amendment No.\n233.\n  I appreciate the concerns of my colleague from Maryland, and I share\nsupport for the school meal programs. I am eager for the Agriculture\nCommittee to turn to child nutrition reauthorization this Congress.\nHowever, this amendment threatens the privilege of the resolution.\n  Senators on the Ag Committee are openminded and welcoming of our\ncolleague's involvement in important child nutrition programs; however,\nthe budget process is not the proper venue to make policy changes to\nour school meals programs. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to\nvote no on this amendment.\n  Madam President, since the amendment does not meet the standard\nrequired by law, I raise a point of order against the amendment under\nsection 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.\n  I yield.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.\n\n                            Motion to Waive\n\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the\nCongressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and\nnays and urge its adoption.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.\n  Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--49\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Sullivan\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--51\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are\n51.\n  Three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in\nthe affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.\n  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.\n  The majority leader.\n\n                           Order of Business\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the\nfollowing amendments be the next amendments in order, that the\namendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to\na vote in relation to the amendments: Lujan, No. 699, Duckworth-Booker\nNo. 971, Heinrich No. 101, and Blumenthal No. 659.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The Senator from New Hampshire.\n\n                           Amendment No. 436\n\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 436 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen], for herself\n     and Ms. Baldwin, proposes an amendment numbered 436.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n preserving and extending vital tax credits enacted under the Patient\n Protection and Affordable Care Act, which make health care accessible\n and affordable and that have led to the lowest uninsured rate in our\n                           Nation's history)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   PRESERVING HEALTH CARE ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY\n                   FOR BENEFICIARIES OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND\n                   AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     preserving health care access and affordability for\n     Americans, which may include preserving and extending tax\n     credits made available by amendment made to the Internal\n     Revenue Code of 1986 by the Patient Protection and Affordable\n     Care Act (Public Law 111-148) that will prevent catastrophic\n     insurance premium hikes for 22,000,000 Americans or the loss\n     of insurance coverage for an additional 4,000,000 Americans,\n     or ensuring that any changes to such tax credits would not\n     result in lower coverage rates, reduced benefits, or\n     decreased affordability for individuals receiving coverage\n     through private insurance markets established under the\n     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by the amounts\n     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided\n     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over the\n     period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, this amendment would extend vital\nAffordable Care Act tax credits for millions of Americans. We all know\nthat healthcare is still too expensive. Unfortunately, this\nreconciliation bill that we are ultimately going to vote on is going to\nmake that worse.\n  In New Hampshire, we hear every day about people rationing medicines,\nskipping appointments, and delaying care all because of costs, but we\ncan act now to lower those costs. We can extend those premium tax\ncredits because if we don't act, they will skyrocket and 4 million\nAmericans will lose their health insurance.\n  I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment to reinforce our support for\nworking families and their access to healthcare.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, once again, this targeted budget\nblueprint before us would focus on the border, the military, and our\nenergy independence. While the Finance Committee does have a $1 billion\ninstruction, this is neither a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill.\nThat instruction makes that clear.\n  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment today as it is\nnot relevant to the Finance Committee instruction.\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n\n[[Page S1112]]\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 436\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--48\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murkowski\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 436) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mullin). The Senator from New Mexico.\n\n                           Amendment No. 699\n\n  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment No.\n699 and ask that it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Lujan] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 699.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n supporting police, which may include initiatives that provide funding\n   directly to law enforcement agencies to hire or rehire additional\n    career law enforcement officers in an effort to increase their\n       community policing capacity and crime prevention efforts)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO RELATING\n                   TO THE COPS HIRING PROGRAM.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     supporting law enforcement officers, which may include\n     legislation supporting initiatives that provide funding\n     directly to law enforcement agencies to hire or rehire\n     additional career law enforcement officers in an effort to\n     increase their community policing capacity and crime\n     prevention efforts, including the COPS Hiring Program under\n     section 1701(b)(2) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control\n     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381(b)(2)), by the\n     amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,\n     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit\n     over the period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n\n  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, we are experiencing a nationwide shortage\nof police officers. Police departments are stretched thin, making our\ncommunities less safe. In the worst cases, some small departments have\ndisbanded completely. Small towns need Federal dollars to bolster their\nranks.\n  The Musk-Trump freeze took funding away from our police departments\nand law enforcement officials. The COPS hiring program is a lifeline to\nmany law enforcement agencies. COPS hiring grants provide funding\ndirectly to law enforcement agencies to increase their community\npolicing capacity and crime prevention efforts.\n  On behalf of all Americans who care about public safety, I introduce\nthis amendment to provide increased resources for local law\nenforcement.\n  This is a bipartisan issue. It should be easy. I hope my colleagues\njust accept it, and we don't even have to have a vote on it. There is\nno reason to oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support\nthis amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.\n  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this\namendment. We should ensure that all law enforcement have the necessary\nequipment, training, and resources to keep our communities safe and\nthoroughly investigate crimes committed against all people. I have come\nto the floor and have spoken on this many, many times in the 10 years\nthat I have been here.\n  Securing the border must remain the top priority in reducing crime,\nand this amendment does not adequately support necessary safety\nimprovements. So I urge you to vote no.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 699\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Mr. LUJAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--48\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Sullivan\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 699) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.\n\n                           Amendment No. 971\n\n  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I call up Duckworth-Booker amendment\nNo. 971 and ask that it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Duckworth] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 971.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n protecting access to fertility services, and eliminating barriers for\n  families in need of high-quality, affordable fertility services by\n       expanding nationwide coverage for in vitro fertilization)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO EXPANDING\n                   COVERAGE FOR IN VITRO FERTILIZATION.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     reproductive health care, which may include legislation\n     protecting access to, improving, or expanding nationwide\n     coverage for reproductive health care, which may include\n     fertility treatment services such as in vitro fertilization,\n     that are consistent with widely accepted and evidence-based\n     medical standards of care, by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, this amendment would protect the right\nto IVF and other fertility care, and it would require insurance to\ncover IVF.\n\n[[Page S1113]]\n\n  I know my Republican colleagues will claim President Trump has\nalready solved this problem, but don't be fooled. Donald Trump's recent\ntoothless, overly-vague Executive order does nothing to expand access\nto IVF. It was just lipservice from a known liar. In fact, it is\nbecause of President Trump and Senate Republicans that Roe v. Wade was\noverturned, causing IVF to be at risk in the first place.\n  If President Trump is supposedly so committed to making government\nmore efficient, he could stop wasting time and resources on more\nbureaucracy.\n  The solution to this is simple and all laid out in the Right to IVF\nAct. If Senate Republicans want to put their votes where their mouths\nare, they must vote for this amendment that would provide hope for\nmillions of Americans whose most desperate hope in the world is to have\na family of their own.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.\n  Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, IVF is legal and accessible in all 50\nStates. This amendment is nothing more than a Trojan horse. It is far\nmore expansive than they would want you to believe. It actually creates\na universal right to ``assisted reproductive technologies,'' allowing\nfuture administrations to move this into human cloning and gene-edited\ndesigner babies. It also contains no religious freedom protections.\n  Aside from being bad policy, let's take a step back and think about\nwhat has occurred. Two days ago, President Trump took the most pro-IVF\nExecutive action ever towards increased treatment, access, and\naffordability, while President Biden played politics with IVF, hoping\nit would help that side of the aisle win on November 5. The American\npeople saw through that. All 49 Republicans here in this Chamber at\nthat time said we strongly support nationwide access to IVF.\n  We look forward over the next 90 days to working with President Trump\nto make sure that we increase access and affordability of treatment.\n  Mr. President, for that reason--today we are here to talk about the\nborder, defense, and energy, and I urge my colleagues to vote this\nTrojan horse down.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 971\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Ms. DUCKWORTH. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--49\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murkowski\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--51\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 971) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.\n\n                           Amendment No. 101\n\n  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 101 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Heinrich] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 101.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n  funding for grants awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO FUNDING\n                   FOR GRANTS AWARDED BY THE OFFICE ON VIOLENCE\n                   AGAINST WOMEN.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     providing funding for grants awarded by the Office on\n     Violence Against Women of the Department of Justice that are\n     designed to develop the capacity of the United States to\n     reduce domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,\n     and stalking by strengthening services to victims and holding\n     offenders accountable, by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment to\nsupport grants for survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse.\n  Over the last several weeks, I have heard from thousands of New\nMexicans about how Donald Trump and Elon Musk have thrown their lives\nand communities into chaos. That includes Alexandria Taylor and her New\nMexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs. She called me about\nPresident Trump's blockade on Federal grants under the Violence Against\nWomen Act. These grants do two things: They support survivors of rape\nand sexual assault, sexual abuse, and domestic violence; and they help\nlaw enforcement hold predators and abusers accountable.\n  These are not woke ideas. These are American values. If you support\nsurvivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, if you support law\nenforcement holding abusers and predators accountable, I hope you will\nsupport this amendment.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 101\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question\noccurs on the adoption of the amendment.\n  The amendment (No. 101) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Connecticut.\n\n                           Amendment No. 659\n\n  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in order to protect our veterans, who\ndeserve full funding, I call up my amendment No. 659 and ask that it be\nreported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Blumenthal] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 659.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n (Purpose: To ensure full and uninterrupted funding for Department of\n  Veterans Affairs health care and benefits provided by the Sergeant\n      First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address\n Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-168), also known as\n            the ``PACT Act'', preventing any cuts or delays)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING\n                   FULL AND UNINTERRUPTED FUNDING FOR DEPARTMENT\n                   OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE AND BENEFITS.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     strengthening veterans' health care and benefits, which may\n     include legislation that would ensure full and uninterrupted\n     funding for veterans' health care or benefits under the\n     Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to\n     Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-\n     168), also known as the ``PACT Act'', by the amounts provided\n     in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this amendment very simply seeks to\n\n[[Page S1114]]\n\nprotect full funding for the PACT Act. All of us--or most of us--voted\nfor it. It was bipartisan. It was one of the most significant\nexpansions of healthcare and benefits for toxic-exposed veterans in the\nVA's history.\n  Now it is threatened because the Trump administration is aggressively\nattempting to decimate the VA workforce. It has imposed a freeze, and\nit is cutting men and women employees who are integral to fulfilling\nour promise under the PACT Act.\n  We should be proud of it. We should preserve it. And if President\nTrump has no plans to erode the PACT Act, voting for this amendment\nshould be easy for my Republican colleagues.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.\n  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this amendment is unnecessary. Full funding\nto carry out the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson PACT Act is not in\njeopardy. The PACT Act received widespread bipartisan support,\nbicameral commitment, because we care about toxic-exposed veterans and\ntheir families, and this is not a partisan issue.\n  Republicans have always fought to fully fund the VA. When the VA\ncomes back to Congress asking for more money, like they did last\nSeptember, because of unexpected shortfalls, we said yes. The\nadministration and this Congress will continue to prioritize full and\nuninterrupted funding of the VA, including funding necessary to fulfill\nthe laws, like the PACT Act, that Congress enacted.\n  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 659\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question\nnow occurs on the adoption of the amendment.\n  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.\n  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.\nFetterman) is necessarily absent.\n  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Hawley\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n\n                             NOT VOTING--1\n\n     Fetterman\n\n  The amendment (No. 659) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.\n\n                           Order of Business\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I think for the benefit of all Members, I\nhope that very soon we will have a final agreement that will enable us\nto wind this down with a finite number of votes. And when that happens,\nI want to ask everybody to be in their seats so we can move fairly\nquickly through those. And in the intervening time period, while they\nare working that out, we have a couple more amendments.\n  I am going to ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be\nthe final amendments in order; that the amendments be reported by\nnumber; that following disposition of the amendments, the Senate vote\non adoption of the concurrent resolution, as amended, with no\nintervening action or debate; finally, if agreed to, the motion to\nreconsider be considered made and laid upon the table: Markey 911;\nCoons 1223.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The Senator from Massachusetts.\n\n                           Amendment No. 911\n\n  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 911 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 911.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n  increasing funding for research on Alzheimer's disease and related\n                               dementias)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   INCREASING FUNDING FOR RESEARCH ON ALZHEIMER'S\n                   DISEASE AND RELATED DEMENTIAS.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     increasing funding for Alzheimer's disease and related\n     dementias, which may include research conducted or funded by\n     the National Institutes of Health, where such funding would\n     contribute to improving the development of treatment and\n     cures, reduce health care costs for families and taxpayers,\n     improve support for caregivers, or safeguard the United\n     States' global leadership in neurodegenerative disease\n     research and innovation, by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, funding for Alzheimer's research at the\nNIH is essential. Nearly 7 million Americans are living with\nAlzheimer's right now, and if nothing changes, 15 million Americans--15\nmillion baby boomers--will have Alzheimer's by 2050 with a cost of $1\ntrillion a year to our healthcare system.\n  We need to tackle this challenge head-on by increasing funding for\nNIH research for Alzheimer's. Trump and DOGE have already cut and\nslowed down NIH research, interfering with our ability to cure this\ndisease. This is a ``Make America Sick'' agenda. A ``no'' on this\namendment means taking away hope from millions of Americans with\nAlzheimer's and their families. After the Bush billionaire tax cut in\n2001, the NIH budget was cut in spending power by 20 percent over the\nnext 5 years.\n  We must guarantee that Alzheimer's research is protected. I urge an\naye vote.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.\n  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this\namendment. As we all know by now, the purpose of this budget resolution\nis to unlock reconciliation so we can once again secure the border and\nkeep America safe.\n  I do look forward to working with the Senator from Massachusetts to\nprevent and better treat Alzheimer's, but the reserve funds in this\ninstance are unnecessary and distract and delay the budgeting process.\n  We need targeted solutions, not broad funding that doesn't directly\naddress the immediate needs. I urge a ``no'' vote.\n  I yield the floor.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 911\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  The amendment (No. 911) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.\n\n                           Amendment No. 1223\n\n  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1223 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Coons] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 1223.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n[[Page S1115]]\n\n  (Purpose: To protect Americans' privacy from unauthorized access by\n                                 DOGE)\n\n  At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROTECT\n                   TAXPAYER PRIVACY\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate level in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     protecting taxpayer information, which may include ensuring\n     the protection of sensitive personal information of United\n     States citizens and prohibiting political appointees and\n     officials from the Department of Government Efficiency from\n     accessing such data, including Social Security numbers, bank\n     account information, tax returns, and addresses through\n     Internal Revenue Service systems by the amounts provided in\n     such legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal year 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mr. COONS. Mr. President and colleagues, unvetted and unaccountable\nDOGE agents have seized control of government systems and databases\nthat contain vast troves of personally identifying, sensitive\ninformation about nearly every American--financial data, health data,\nSocial Security numbers, home addresses. The risks to our privacy are\nimmense, and the opportunities for corruption alarming.\n  The possibility that unqualified and inexperienced individuals will\nbreak critical systems through malice or incompetence is chilling.\n  In the past few weeks, I have received literally thousands of calls\nfrom concerned constituents, and I expect many of my colleagues have as\nwell.\n  Musk and his DOGE bureaucrats are accessing private data, and I am\nurging a ``yes'' vote on this amendment that would prohibit their\naccess to this data or misusing private information.\n  Voters are worried. They are worried that if they say the wrong thing\nor speak up against Trump or DOGE, their bank account information will\nend up on Twitter, their tax return won't come, or their family member\nwon't get their Social Security check.\n  I urge a ``yes'' vote on amendment No. 1223.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.\n  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this\namendment. This amendment is unnecessary. We already have laws on the\nbooks to protect people's information.\n  The most recent cases I can remember of leaking information like this\ninvolved an IRS contractor who illegally leaked the tax returns of\nPresident Trump, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos to the delight of many on\nthe other side of the aisle.\n  That person, fortunately, though, is now in jail, which proves the\npoint that we already have laws in place to take care of this. This\namendment is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent DOGE from doing the\nconstructive job of finding waste. This is an amendment that says it is\nOK to spend $2 million in Guatemala on sex change surgery. This is an\namendment that says it is OK, look the other way, transgender comic\nbooks in Peru are great. This is an amendment that says it is OK to do\ntrans operas in Colombia. This is an amendment that attacks people who\nare looking to save our money and spend it on legitimate diplomacy, not\ncrazy, looney, leftwing ideas. And I am done.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is on the amendment.\n  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.\n  Mr. COONS. I will accept the voice vote.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  The amendment (No. 1223) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.\n\n                           Order of Procedure\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following\namendments be the final amendments in order; that the amendments be\nreported by number; that following disposition of the amendments, the\nSenate vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution, as amended, with\nno intervening action or debate; finally, if agreed to, the motion to\nreconsider be considered made and laid upon the table: Lujan 957,\nWarren 734, Kelly 984, King 198, Lee 922, Blunt Rochester 311, Murray-\nDurbin 880, and Merkley 1207.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. THUNE. And I would further ask consent these be 10-minute votes.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The Senator from New Mexico.\n\n                           Amendment No. 957\n\n  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, 41.2 million Americans rely on SNAP to put\nfood on the table. I would like to call up my amendment No. 957 and ask\nit to be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Lujan] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 957.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n(Purpose: To strike reconciliation instructions requiring damaging cuts\n    to programs critical to rural Americans and food assistance for\n                           American families)\n\n       Strike section 2002(a).\n\n  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, 41.2 million Americans rely on SNAP to put\nfood on the table, and 40 percent of SNAP recipients are children.\n  The Republican budget resolution before us tonight will dramatically\nslash nutrition; conservation; other farm programs for our children,\nfamilies, and farmers--all to pay for the Trump tax scam. And we all\nknow it is only going to benefit the wealthiest Americans.\n  Now, I want to get a farm bill done, and I think most of us here want\nto do that. Taking critical Federal dollars from our rural communities\nwill make that nearly impossible. And that is not all. This means that\ncosts will go up for families across America at a time when prices are\nalready high. The result: Children and families will go hungry. We all\nknow that that is unacceptable.\n  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.\n  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this\namendment. Striking the all-powerful Agriculture Committee's\nreconciliation instruction will make it more difficult to pay for\ncritical improvements for border security and our national defense.\n  A vote for this amendment indicates the Democrats don't believe there\nis a single area of waste, fraud, or abuse in our Federal nutrition\nprograms.\n  In 2022 alone, the staff program had an overpayment rate of 10\npercent, which amounts to billions of dollars in erroneous payments.\nRepublicans will find commonsense savings in the Ag Committee's\njurisdiction while ensuring we have a well-targeted, nutrition safety\nnet for those in need.\n  I urge a ``no'' vote.\n  I yield the floor.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 957\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Mr. LUJAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--53\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n\n[[Page S1116]]\n\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 957) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.\n\n                           Amendment No. 734\n\n  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 734 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The bill clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Massachusetts [Ms. Warren] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 734.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the general reserve fund)\n\n       Beginning on page 52, strike line 20 and all that follows\n     through page 53, line 6, and insert the following:\n\n     SEC. 3002. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION THAT\n                   DOES NOT INCREASE TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.\n\n       (a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of\n     the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or\n     committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this\n     resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,\n     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,\n     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports\n     by the amounts provided in such legislation, provided that\n     such legislation does not reduce the average tax liability of\n     taxpayers with income over $10,000,000 and provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Ms. WARREN. As we begin the budget process, Democrats are asking\nRepublicans questions about the basic principles of what they are\nplanning to do. The first question is whether there is anyone who is so\nrich that Republicans think they don't need a tax giveaway.\n  My amendment says that anyone who earns more than $10 million a year\nwon't get a tax cut in the new Republican budget, and I want to know if\nRepublicans will agree to that. I urge everyone, Democrat or\nRepublican, to say yes.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.\n  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it seems to me that it is important, as\nwe conclude tonight, that we admit to the American people what we know\nto be true ourselves, and that is that most of these amendments are\nfiction. It is professional wrestling. It is the Undertaker v. Andre\nthe Giant. They have been all foam and no beer. All salt and no\ntequila.\n\n  Unless you do your research on Instagram, you know that our bill is\ngoing to be not about taxes but about immigration and defense.\n  There will be time to consider my friend Senator Warren's amendment,\nbut it won't be on this bill. There will be time to point out that 60\npercent of tax cuts in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act affected the\nmiddle class. For that reason I ask for a ``no'' vote.\n  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 24 seconds.\n  Ms. WARREN. In my 24 seconds, I would like to say we all know what\nthis is about. You are starting the process for a budget, and we just\nwant to know the basic principle. Is there anyone so rich that\nRepublicans think they shouldn't get a tax cut? And my view is, let's\njust start the bidding at $10 million. Is that rich enough to say they\nare not going to get a tax giveaway from the Republicans?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.\n  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all foam, no beer.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 734\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  The amendment (No. 734) was rejected.\n\n                           Amendment No. 984\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Arizona.\n  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 984 and ask that\nit be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kelly] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 984.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the general reserve fund)\n\n       Beginning on page 52, strike line 20 and all that follows\n     through page 53, line 6, and insert the following:\n\n     SEC. 3002. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION THAT\n                   DOES NOT INCREASE TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.\n\n       (a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of\n     the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or\n     committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this\n     resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,\n     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,\n     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports\n     by the amounts provided in such legislation, provided that\n     such legislation does not reduce the average tax liability of\n     taxpayers with income over $100,000,000 and provided that\n     such legislation would not increase the deficit over the\n     period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, since we now know that $10 million did not\nmeet the threshold, we are debating who in this country is so rich that\nthey don't need a tax cut. That one didn't pass. So here is my\nproposal: Can we at least agree among all of us that no one making more\nthan $100 million per year should get a tax cut?\n  The median income in this country is about $80,000 per year, and it\nwould take 1,245 years for someone making the median income in America\nto earn $100 million. That is about 15 lifetimes.\n  Does somebody that rich need a tax cut? I don't think so. Vote yes if\nyou agree.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this is the same as the last one. So I am\ngoing to adopt Senator Kennedy's debate and urge a ``no'' vote.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 984\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  The amendment (No. 984) is rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.\n\n                           Amendment No. 198\n\n  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 198 and ask that\nit be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Maine [Mr. King] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 198.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the general reserve fund)\n\n       Beginning on page 52, strike line 20 and all that follows\n     through page 53, line 6, and insert the following:\n\n     SEC. 3002. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION THAT\n                   DOES NOT INCREASE TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.\n\n       (a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of\n     the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or\n     committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this\n     resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,\n     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,\n     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports\n     by the amounts provided in such legislation, provided that\n     such legislation does not reduce the average tax liability of\n     taxpayers with income over $500,000,000 and provided that\n     such legislation would not increase the deficit over the\n     period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mr. KING. This afternoon I was on the floor. I was privileged to\nattend to the remarks of the distinguished chair of the Finance\nCommittee where he characterized the upcoming tax bill that will be\nbefore us shortly. He characterized it as principally benefiting the\nmiddle class and working class and denied that it would be especially\nor in any way beneficial to the superwealthy in our country.\n  Well, I have always subscribed to Ronald Reagan's motto: Trust but\nverify. I am simply asking to verify what the chairman of the Finance\nCommittee said this afternoon. My amendment would just say: no\nreduction in tax liability to someone making more than $500 million.\nThere are about 400 families in America, and $500\n\n[[Page S1117]]\n\nmillion seems to me a number that would justify not having a tax\nreduction. That is all the amendment does--no tax reduction and\nliability for those making more than $500 million.\n  I urge a ``yes'' vote to verify what we were told on the floor this\nafternoon.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the third time around, Senator Kennedy's\ndebate still remains. Vote no.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 198\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  The amendment (No. 198) was rejected.\n\n =========================== NOTE ===========================\n\n  On page S1117, February 20, 2025, first column, the following\nappears: Vote on Amendment No. 198 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The\nquestion occurs on the adoption of the amendment. The amendment\n(No. 984) was rejected\n\n  The online Record has been corrected to read: Vote on Amendment\nNo. 198 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the adoption\nof the amendment. The amendment (No. 198) was rejected\n\n ========================= END NOTE =========================\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.\n\n                           Amendment No. 922\n\n  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 922 and ask that\nit be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 922.\n\n       The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n  Congress continuing its work to rein in the administrative state by\n supporting legislation that prevents Federal agencies from finalizing\n major rules without congressional approval, strengthens the Article 1\n  law-making powers of Congress, cuts spending resulting from costly\n     regulations, reduces inflation, and unleashes economic growth)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   GOVERNMENT DEREGULATION.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     reducing burdensome and costly Federal Government regulations\n     by passing legislation focused on government deregulation\n     that will decrease new spending arising from such regulations\n     and reassert the proper constitutional role of Congress in\n     the law-making process by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the\n     period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2029 or the\n     period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Congress, not unelected, unaccountable\nbureaucrats, should be making our laws. Article I, section 7 of the\nConstitution requires nothing less. And yet we generate about 100,000\npages of new laws a year. This is choking the American people.\n  The prior administration imposed countless rules and regulations that\nimposed trillions in new economic costs on the private sector. Many of\nthese rules have been estimated to increase Federal spending, Federal\nmandatory outlays, by hundreds of billions of dollars without\ncongressional approval.\n  The Federal Government already spends too much money. This has\ncontributed to persistent inflation the last couple of years and a debt\nlevel that will soon reach record-level highs that we cannot sustain.\n  Congress shouldn't allow regulatory-driven spending to continue to\nworsen our country's fiscal and economic health. I encourage my\ncolleagues to support my amendment and demonstrate to the American\npeople that they are serious about reducing excessive regulatory\nburdens. What we are trying to do is to push ``pause'' on these to\nbring about the reduction in these mandatory outlays. I encourage my\ncolleagues to support this amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.\n  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's commitment to\nempowering the legislative branch of government. We have worked\ntogether on a bill to rein in Presidential abuse of emergency powers. I\nhope we can get that across the finish line sometime this Congress.\n  Unfortunately, I am concerned that this amendment sets up a complex\nand arguably unconstitutional legislative scheme to get rid of\nregulations and undermine the bicameral legislative process. Under the\nregulatory approval scheme that this amendment tees up, one Chamber of\nCongress could effectively nullify the law previously passed by the\nwhole of Congress simply by not approving a rule of implementation.\n  This amendment also undermines Agencies' ability to implement key\nenvironmental health and safety laws, endangering the American people.\n  If Congress wants to repeal a law, we should repeal the law, not\ncreate some new arcane process to sabotage implementation.\n  I welcome the opportunity to work with colleagues to pass legislation\nto strengthen the power of Congress, including to ensure that the\nPresident cannot tear up bipartisan funding bills enacted by Congress.\nBut I urge my colleagues to reject this potentially unconstitutional\nand dangerous deregulatory amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 922\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--53\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n\n                                NAYS--47\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n  The amendment (No. 922) was agreed to.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.\n\n                           Amendment No. 311\n\n  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 311\nand ask that it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Delaware [Ms. Blunt Rochester] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 311.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n  preventing the indiscriminate termination of Federal employees who\n     protect the health or safety of Americans, which may include\n    scientists, emergency preparedness staff, frontline health care\n workers, drug or medical device reviewers, or other employees at the\n                Department of Health and Human Services)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   PREVENTING THE INDISCRIMINATE TERMINATION OF\n                   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO PROTECT THE HEALTH OR\n                   SAFETY OF AMERICANS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE\n                   SCIENTISTS, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS STAFF,\n                   FRONTLINE HEALTH CARE WORKERS, DRUG OR MEDICAL\n                   DEVICE REVIEWERS, OR OTHER EMPLOYEES AT THE\n                   DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     preventing the indiscriminate termination of Federal\n     employees who protect the health or safety of Americans,\n     which may include scientists, emergency preparedness staff,\n     frontline health\n\n[[Page S1118]]\n\n     care workers, drug or medical device reviewers, or other\n     employees at the Department of Health and Human Services, by\n     the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,\n     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit\n     over the period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n\n  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, this amendment would prevent the\nwrongful termination of Federal employees who protect the health and\nsafety of all Americans.\n  At a time when our country is facing unprecedented workforce\nshortages, the Trump administration is thoughtlessly and callously\nfiring thousands of public servants at the Department of Health and\nHuman Services and other Departments, putting all of us at risk.\n  What does this mean? It means delaying cures for cancer. It means\nhigher prescription drug costs for seniors, which we fought so hard to\nlower. It means higher maternity mortality rates and more American\nwomen dying needlessly while giving birth.\n  Who are these public servants? They are scientists, emergency\npreparedness experts, the frontline healthcare workers whom we call\nheroes. Bottom line: It is the people who keep us safe and healthy.\n  While Republicans work to cut taxes for billionaires, they are\nslashing the healthcare workforce our communities rely on. On behalf of\nour constituents and our country, I urge my colleagues to support this\namendment.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.\n  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this\namendment.\n  As we have learned tonight, this budget resolution is about unlocking\nreconciliation to secure the border and keep Americans safe. This\namendment is unnecessary and delays the budgeting process.\n  That being said, I look forward to working with the Senator from\nDelaware to make HHS great again.\n  I yield the floor.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 311\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  The amendment (No. 311) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.\n\n                           Amendment No. 880\n\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 880 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an\n     amendment numbered 880.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n reversing the Trump Administration's indiscriminate cut to biomedical\n research and the lifesaving work supported by the National Institutes\n         of Health at research institutions across the country)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   SUPPORTING LIFE-SAVING RESEARCH FUNDED BY THE\n                   NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     supporting life-saving biomedical research funded by the\n     National Institutes of Health by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the\n     period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2029 or the\n     period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Trump administration is working to\ndestroy medical research as we know it with an illegal, unrealistic cap\non the NIH reimbursement rate for indirect costs. It means cancer\nresearchers laid off, lifesaving clinical trials canceled, and more,\nand it violates the bipartisan appropriations law. I should know--I\nhelped author that provision. Republicans should know--they worked with\nme to pass it.\n  I yield to the senior Senator from Illinois.\n  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues know, as I do,\nthat President Trump's cuts, freezes, gag orders, and firings are\ndevastating medical research at NIH. Since we get sick on a bipartisan\nbasis, shouldn't we stand together on a bipartisan basis for medical\nresearch at NIH?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.\n  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all foam, no beer. This proposal deals\nwith healthcare spending. I would remind my colleagues and friends that\nNIH recently announced their intention to cap indirect costs for\ngrants. Many of our universities are spending all of the taxpayer money\non overhead. Harvard is spending 69 percent; Yale, 67.5 percent--on\noverhead. Isn't that special? Johns Hopkins, 63.7 percent. This will\nmake Bernie Madoff blush.\n  I will revise and extend my other remarks: all foam, no beer.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 880\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  The amendment (No. 880) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n\n                           Amendment No. 1207\n\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1207 and ask\nthat it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. MERKLEY] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 1207.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to\n              ending price gouging on prescription drugs)\n\n       At the end of title III, add the following:\n\n     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REDUCING\n                   FEDERAL HEALTH PROGRAM SPENDING FOR\n                   PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     reducing health care costs, which may include legislation\n     enabling Americans to have a much improved opportunity to\n     purchase prescription drugs at, or near, the lower prices\n     manufacturers charge in other similarly developed nations,\n     requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report annually the\n     amount of taxpayer dollars used to benefit manufacturers'\n     research and development efforts, or enacting other\n     mechanisms to purchase prescription drugs at lower prices, by\n     the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,\n     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit\n     over the period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Colleagues, this amendment encourages the opportunity\nfor Americans to purchase prescription drugs at or near the lower\nprices that manufacturers charge to individuals in other similar,\ndeveloped nations.\n  Here is what every American knows: We all invest more in the research\nand development to develop drugs than the taxpayers of any other nation\nin the entire world, so we should be getting the best price, not the\nworst price. This amendment creates an opportunity for us to serve the\nAmerican people and get them the fair prices they deserve.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this\namendment today because it is not relevant to the Finance Committee's\ninstruction.\n\n                       Vote on Amendment No. 1207\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the\namendment.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--49\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n\n[[Page S1119]]\n\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Hawley\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Sullivan\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--51\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n  The amendment (No. 1207) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.\n  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to my colleagues, it has been a very long\nday. To the Budget Committee staff, Nick and your team, thank you very\nmuch.\n  Through this process, I have gotten to know Senator Merkley better.\nIt has been a pleasure.\n  We are one step closer to fixing a problem that all Americans want us\nto fix, I think. The man who murdered Laken Riley was released from\ndetention because we had no bed space. That should never happen again.\nThere is $175 billion in this bill to make sure we have enough bed\nspace; we complete, finish the wall, and kick gang members and other\ncriminals out of the country; $150 billion for a military that has been\nworn out--they need the money; and $20 billion for the mighty, mighty\nCoast Guard.\n  We are one step closer to fulfilling the promise Republicans made to\nmake you safer. I hope we can get one big, beautiful bill in the House,\nbut we need to act on border security and national security now. We are\nrunning out of time.\n  Thank you all.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I so much appreciate the collaboration\nand cooperation and communication between the Budget team here on this\nside of the aisle and Senator Graham's team.\n  We have had the chance to all be on the floor and have the discussion\nabout issues that we rarely get to have. It isn't quite the give-and-\ntake that you might see in some legislatures, but we are, in fact, here\nwrestling with the national issues.\n  This budget resolution comes down to one thing, and that is that\nfamilies lose and billionaires win. I said at the beginning of the\nnight that over the course of the evening, amendments would show that\nDemocrats are standing up for families--on groceries, on healthcare, on\nhousing, on education, on childcare--and that is what has been\ndemonstrated tonight.\n  I still invite our Republican colleagues to join us--join with us--\nand help the families of America rather than attacking the programs\nthat serve them in order to fund tax giveaways for billionaires. Tax\ngiveaways for billionaires will not make our Nation stronger; stronger\nfamilies will make our Nation stronger.\n\n                         Vote on S. Con. Res. 7\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs\non adoption of the concurrent resolution, as amended.\n  Mr. GRAHAM. This bill will be paid for.\n  I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--52\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lummis\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n\n                                NAYS--48\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Paul\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 7), as amended, was agreed\nto, as follows:\n\n                             S. Con. Res. 7\n\n       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives\n     concurring),\n\n     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL\n                   YEAR 2025.\n\n       (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is\n     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2025\n     and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary\n     levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.\n       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this\n     concurrent resolution is as follows:\n\nSec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2025.\n\n                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS\n\n              Subtitle A--Budgetary Levels in Both Houses\n\nSec. 1101. Recommended levels and amounts.\nSec. 1102. Major functional categories.\n\n              Subtitle B--Levels and Amounts in the Senate\n\nSec. 1201. Social Security in the Senate.\nSec. 1202. Postal Service discretionary administrative expenses in the\n              Senate.\n\n                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION\n\nSec. 2001. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.\nSec. 2002. Reconciliation in the Senate.\n\n                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS\n\nSec. 3001. Reserve fund for reconciliation legislation.\nSec. 3002. Reserve fund for deficit-neutral legislation.\nSec, 3003. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to protecting Medicare\n              and Medicaid.\nSec. 3004. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to Government\n              deregulation.\n\n                        TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS\n\nSec. 4001. Enforcement filing.\nSec. 4002. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.\nSec. 4003. Application and effect of changes in allocations,\n              aggregates, and other budgetary levels.\nSec. 4004. Adjustment authority for revisions to statutory caps.\nSec. 4005. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.\nSec. 4006. Adjustment for changes in the baseline.\nSec. 4007. Exercise of rulemaking powers.\n\n                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS\n\n              Subtitle A--Budgetary Levels in Both Houses\n\n     SEC. 1101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.\n\n       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034:\n       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of\n     this resolution:\n       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as\n     follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: $3,853,053,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026: $4,005,633,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027: $4,095,208,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028: $4,221,709,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029: $4,343,708,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030: $4,536,585,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031: $4,744,851,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032: $4,939,252,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033: $5,155,399,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034: $5,375,311,000,000.\n       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal\n     revenues should be changed are as follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: -$5,916,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026: -$211,035,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027: -$421,185,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028: -$415,138,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029: -$416,123,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030: -$422,056,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031: -$435,419,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032: -$449,460,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033: -$467,244,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034: -$484,719,000,000.\n       (2) Federal revenue changes relative to current policy.--\n     The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues\n     should be changed compared to current policy are as follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: $0.\n\n[[Page S1120]]\n\n       Fiscal year 2026: $0.\n       Fiscal year 2027: $0.\n       Fiscal year 2028: $0.\n       Fiscal year 2029: $0.\n       Fiscal year 2030: $0.\n       Fiscal year 2031: $0.\n       Fiscal year 2032: $0.\n       Fiscal year 2033: $0.\n       Fiscal year 2034: $0.\n       (3) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement\n     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new\n     budget authority are as follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: $4,660,822,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026: $4,787,172,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027: $4,918,969,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028: $5,195,931,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029: $5,348,812,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030: $5,634,695,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031: $5,877,961,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032: $6,148,105,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033: $6,480,776,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034: $6,681,550,000,000.\n       (4) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of\n     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget\n     outlays are as follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: $4,636,002,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026: $4,803,228,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027: $4,995,184,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028: $5,283,709,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029: $5,338,399,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030: $5,621,606,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031: $5,845,033,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032: $6,078,132,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033: $6,437,602,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034: $6,592,030,000,000.\n       (5) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this\n     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: $782,949,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026: $797,595,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027: $899,976,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028: $1,062,000,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029: $994,691,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030: $1,085,021,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031: $1,100,182,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032: $1,138,880,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033: $1,282,203,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034: $1,216,719,000,000.\n       (6) Public debt.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the\n     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)(5)), the\n     appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: $36,371,784,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026: $37,521,488,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027: $38,649,388,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028: $39,897,925,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029: $41,251,544,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030: $42,552,065,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031: $43,855,127,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032: $45,199,622,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033: $46,803,080,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034: $48,714,403,000,000.\n       (7) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of\n     debt held by the public are as follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: $29,141,533,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026: $30,151,121,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027: $31,291,493,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028: $32,629,565,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029: $33,930,044,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030: $35,349,716,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031: $36,814,512,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032: $38,364,377,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033: $40,073,109,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034: $41,747,907,000,000.\n\n     SEC. 1102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.\n\n       Congress determines and declares that the appropriate\n     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years\n     2025 through 2034 for each major functional category are:\n       (1) National Defense (050):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $933,481,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $909,629,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $901,220,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $904,412,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $923,020,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $911,956,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $944,111,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $934,660,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $966,203,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $942,419,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $989,212,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $966,361,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,012,715,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $984,795,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,036,723,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,003,888,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,062,319,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,037,888,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,087,382,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,054,430,000,000.\n       (2) International Affairs (150):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $65,962,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $69,206,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $61,716,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $67,669,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $62,249,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $66,456,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $63,512,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $62,391,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $64,944,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $62,832,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $66,408,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $63,077,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $67,878,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $64,002,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $69,343,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $65,176,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $70,874,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $66,517,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $72,435,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $67,889,000,000.\n       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $42,084,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $41,734,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $41,345,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $41,844,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $42,264,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $41,923,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $43,099,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $42,198,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $44,017,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $42,887,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $44,980,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $43,633,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $45,946,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $44,551,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $46,922,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $45,486,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $47,936,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $46,460,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $48,985,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $47,466,000,000.\n       (4) Energy (270):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $39,842,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $37,587,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $39,958,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $44,514,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $34,098,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $52,768,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $34,825,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $51,623,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $35,770,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $48,582,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $33,946,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $42,596,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $35,188,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $40,366,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $39,697,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $41,611,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $24,489,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $25,941,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $16,203,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $17,040,000,000.\n       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $88,219,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $90,074,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $67,633,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $80,552,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $45,140,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $75,844,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $45,985,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $71,673,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $46,956,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $67,691,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $47,707,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $63,948,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $48,854,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $60,580,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $49,918,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $56,444,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $51,246,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $55,797,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $52,225,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $55,480,000,000.\n       (6) Agriculture (350):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $58,457,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $41,846,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $28,163,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $46,212,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $31,716,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $33,686,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $33,008,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $34,426,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $33,334,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $32,441,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $30,857,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $30,098,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $30,468,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $29,609,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $31,239,000,000.\n\n[[Page S1121]]\n\n       (B) Outlays, $30,163,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $32,276,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $30,893,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $32,912,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $31,721,000,000.\n       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $12,477,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$18,175,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $32,747,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$626,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $28,145,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $7,710,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$56,796,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$65,194,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $25,562,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $15,976,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $25,712,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $12,680,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $25,941,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $7,932,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $26,354,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $5,060,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $20,192,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$4,224,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $29,862,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $2,451,000,000.\n       (8) Transportation (400):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $173,158,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $144,771,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $167,673,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $152,541,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $132,085,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $158,068,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $133,386,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $162,528,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $134,447,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $160,846,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $129,994,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $150,790,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $130,964,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $147,539,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $138,846,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $150,163,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $140,544,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $149,247,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $142,271,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $149,454,000,000.\n       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $87,762,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $78,752,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $20,135,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $64,267,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $19,259,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $56,506,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $19,462,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $45,101,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $19,888,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $35,976,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $20,326,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $31,026,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $20,727,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $27,543,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $21,007,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $24,658,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $21,462,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $22,754,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $21,864,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $21,733,000,000.\n       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services\n     (500):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $149,303,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $171,916,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $152,714,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $151,605,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $154,949,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $150,975,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $157,763,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $152,697,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $160,740,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $155,316,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $163,649,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $158,173,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $166,633,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $161,098,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $169,998,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $164,267,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $173,554,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $167,569,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $176,600,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $170,648,000,000.\n       (11) Health (550):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $945,070,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $961,180,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $992,092,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $976,652,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,020,326,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,021,179,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,055,396,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,052,323,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,098,848,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,094,015,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,142,891,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,132,318,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,176,522,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,175,476,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,226,824,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,216,998,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,276,881,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,266,068,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,310,000,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,298,975,000,000.\n       (12) Medicare (570):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $950,891,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $950,641,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,006,800,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,008,719,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,066,571,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,066,276,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,209,735,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,208,310,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,125,645,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,125,229,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,275,864,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,275,566,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,357,791,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,357,726,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,445,195,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,445,191,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,663,779,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,663,796,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,666,492,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,666,497,000,000.\n       (13) Income Security (600):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $712,446,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $709,132,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $691,755,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $690,914,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $709,037,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $704,040,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $727,612,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $727,412,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $729,224,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $715,149,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $748,243,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $739,546,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $761,438,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $752,199,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $779,471,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $769,491,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $800,819,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $797,512,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $809,385,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $799,089,000,000.\n       (14) Social Security (650):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $67,259,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $67,259,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $81,690,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $81,690,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $89,447,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $89,447,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $94,419,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $94,419,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $100,138,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $100,138,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $106,208,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $106,208,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $112,114,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $112,114,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $118,485,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $118,485,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $125,325,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $125,325,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $132,539,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $132,539,000,000.\n       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $361,349,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $357,760,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $382,555,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $378,814,000,000.\n\n[[Page S1122]]\n\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $404,594,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $401,319,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $427,329,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $444,241,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $447,757,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $422,317,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $466,616,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $461,720,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $486,716,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $481,638,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $507,187,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $502,655,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $528,733,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $548,734,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $550,662,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $547,796,000,000.\n       (16) Administration of Justice (750):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $83,111,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $85,235,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $88,992,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $87,024,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $87,701,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $86,420,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $89,687,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $88,514,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $92,142,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $90,690,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $94,574,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $92,986,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $96,848,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $94,869,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $104,463,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $101,844,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $107,160,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $104,339,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $109,431,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $106,934,000,000.\n       (17) General Government (800):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $10,089,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $37,960,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $30,666,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $38,285,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $32,065,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $38,261,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $32,994,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $37,957,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $33,770,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $37,793,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $34,614,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $37,985,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $35,247,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $37,024,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $36,189,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $36,307,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $36,960,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $36,758,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $37,681,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $37,266,000,000.\n       (18) Net Interest (900):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,010,050,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,010,050,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,022,935,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,022,935,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,064,571,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,064,571,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,130,048,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,130,048,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,186,820,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,186,820,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,237,051,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,237,051,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,294,533,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,294,533,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,354,493,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,354,493,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,407,576,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,407,576,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $1,469,426,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $1,469,426,000,000.\n       (19) Allowances (920):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$1,002,585,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$982,952,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$888,507,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$899,685,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$890,385,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$894,338,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$848,499,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$850,453,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$851,993,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$853,311,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$874,575,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$874,575,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$874,548,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$874,548,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$894,135,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$894,135,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$945,247,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$945,247,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$913,790,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$913,790,000,000.\n       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$127,603,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$127,603,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$135,110,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$135,110,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$137,883,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$137,883,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$141,145,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$141,165,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$145,400,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$145,407,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$149,582,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$149,581,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$154,014,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$154,013,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$160,114,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$160,113,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$166,102,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$166,101,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, -$171,015,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, -$171,014,000,000.\n\n              Subtitle B--Levels and Amounts in the Senate\n\n     SEC. 1201. SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE SENATE.\n\n       (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate\n     enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional\n     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633 and 642), the amounts of\n     revenues of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust\n     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as\n     follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: $1,303,924,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026: $1,363,672,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027: $1,418,444,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028: $1,471,555,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029: $1,530,067,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030: $1,590,856,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031: $1,653,864,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032: $1,717,636,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033: $1,781,872,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034: $1,848,256,000,000.\n       (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate\n     enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional\n     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633 and 642), the amounts of\n     outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust\n     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as\n     follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025: $1,413,704,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026: $1,496,323,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027: $1,585,399,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028: $1,686,635,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029: $1,786,689,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030: $1,890,295,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031: $1,998,538,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032: $2,111,627,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033: $2,224,148,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034: $2,324,954,000,000.\n       (c) Social Security Administrative Expenses.--In the\n     Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and budget\n     outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust\n     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for\n     administrative expenses are as follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $6,408,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $6,338,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $6,268,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $6,287,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $6,455,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $6,422,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $6,644,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $6,584,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $6,832,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $6,765,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $7,033,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $6,963,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n\n[[Page S1123]]\n\n       (A) New budget authority, $7,233,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $7,162,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $7,437,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $7,365,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $7,651,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $7,576,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $7,869,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $7,792,000,000.\n\n     SEC. 1202. POSTAL SERVICE DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE\n                   EXPENSES IN THE SENATE.\n\n       In the Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and\n     budget outlays of the Postal Service for discretionary\n     administrative expenses are as follows:\n       Fiscal year 2025:\n       (A) New budget authority, $268,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $268,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2026:\n       (A) New budget authority, $279,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $279,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2027:\n       (A) New budget authority, $289,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $289,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2028:\n       (A) New budget authority, $299,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $299,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2029:\n       (A) New budget authority, $309,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $309,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2030:\n       (A) New budget authority, $319,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $319,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2031:\n       (A) New budget authority, $330,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $330,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2032:\n       (A) New budget authority, $341,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $341,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2033:\n       (A) New budget authority, $352,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $352,000,000.\n       Fiscal year 2034:\n       (A) New budget authority, $364,000,000.\n       (B) Outlays, $364,000,000.\n\n                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION\n\n     SEC. 2001. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.\n\n       (a) Committee on Agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture\n     of the House of Representatives shall report changes in laws\n     within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less\n     than $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025\n     through 2034.\n       (b) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed\n     Services of the House of Representatives shall report changes\n     in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by\n     not more than $150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years\n     2025 through 2034.\n       (c) Committee on Education and Workforce.--The Committee on\n     Education and Workforce of the House of Representatives shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce\n     the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (d) Committee on Energy and Commerce.--The Committee on\n     Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce\n     the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (e) Committee on Natural Resources.--The Committee on\n     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce\n     the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (f) Committee on Homeland Security.--The Committee on\n     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase\n     the deficit by not more than $175,000,000,000 for the period\n     of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (g) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the\n     Judiciary of the House of Representatives shall report\n     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the\n     deficit by not more than $175,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (h) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.--The\n     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House\n     of Representatives shall report changes in laws within its\n     jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than\n     $20,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (i) Submissions.--In the House of Representatives, not\n     later than March 7, 2025, the committees named in the\n     subsections of this section shall submit their\n     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the House\n     of Representatives to carry out this section.\n\n     SEC. 2002. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.\n\n       (a) Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.--The\n     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the\n     Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction\n     that reduce the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for\n     the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (b) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed\n     Services of the Senate shall report changes in laws within\n     its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than\n     $150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (c) Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.--\n     The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the\n     Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction\n     that increase the deficit by not more than $20,000,000,000\n     for the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (d) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.--The\n     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce\n     the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (e) Committee on Environment and Public Works.--The\n     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate shall\n     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase\n     the deficit by not more than $1,000,000,000 for the period of\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (f) Committee on Finance.--The Committee on Finance of the\n     Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction\n     that reduce the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for\n     the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n       (g) Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.--\n     The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of\n     the Senate shall report changes in laws within its\n     jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less than\n     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (h) Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental\n     Affairs.--The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental\n     Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its\n     jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than\n     $175,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (i) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the\n     Judiciary of the Senate shall report changes in laws within\n     its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than\n     $175,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through\n     2034.\n       (j) Submissions.--In the Senate, not later than March 7,\n     2025, the committees named in the subsections of this section\n     shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the\n     Budget of the Senate. Upon receiving all such\n     recommendations, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out\n     all such recommendations without any substantive revision.\n\n                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS\n\n     SEC. 3001. RESERVE FUND FOR RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION.\n\n       (a) House of Representatives.--\n       (1) In general.--In the House of the Representatives, the\n     chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the\n     allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and\n     other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill or\n     joint resolution considered pursuant to section 2001\n     containing the recommendations of one or more committees, or\n     for one or more amendments to, a conference report on, or an\n     amendment between the Houses in relation to such a bill or\n     joint resolution, by the amounts necessary to accommodate the\n     budgetary effects of the legislation, if the budgetary\n     effects of the legislation comply with the reconciliation\n     instructions under this concurrent resolution.\n       (2) Determination of compliance.--For purposes of this\n     section, compliance with the reconciliation instructions\n     under this concurrent resolution shall be determined by the\n     chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of\n     Representatives.\n       (3) Exception for legislation.--The point of order set\n     forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the House of\n     Representatives shall not apply to reconciliation legislation\n     reported by the Committee on the Budget pursuant to\n     submissions under section 2001.\n       (b) Senate.--\n       (1) In general.--In the Senate, the Chairman of the\n     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the\n     allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and\n     other appropriate levels in this resolution, and make\n     adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for any bill or\n     joint resolution considered pursuant to section 2002\n     containing the recommendations of one or more committees, or\n     for one or more amendments to, a conference report on, or an\n     amendment between the Houses in relation to such a bill or\n     joint resolution, by the amounts necessary to accommodate the\n     budgetary effects of the legislation, if the budgetary\n     effects of the legislation comply with the reconciliation\n     instructions under this concurrent resolution.\n       (2) Determination of compliance.--For purposes of this\n     section, compliance with the reconciliation instructions\n     under this concurrent resolution shall be determined by the\n     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.\n       (3) Exceptions for legislation.--\n       (A) Short-term.--Section 404 of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th\n     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal\n     year 2010, as amended by section 3201(b)(2) of S. Con. Res.\n     11 (114th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget\n     for fiscal year 2016, shall not apply to legislation for\n     which the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the\n     Senate has exercised the authority under paragraph (1).\n       (B) Long-term.--Section 3101 of S. Con. Res. 11 (114th\n     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal\n     year 2016, shall not apply to legislation for which the\n     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate has\n     exercised the authority under paragraph (1).\n\n     SEC. 3002. RESERVE FUND FOR DEFICIT-NEUTRAL LEGISLATION.\n\n       (a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of\n     the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or\n     committees, aggregates, and other appropriate\n\n[[Page S1124]]\n\n     levels in this resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-\n     as-you-go ledger, for one or more bills, joint resolutions,\n     amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or\n     conference reports by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation, provided that such legislation would not\n     increase the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal\n     years 2025 through 2034.\n       (b) House of Representatives.--The chair of the Committee\n     on the Budget of the House of Representatives may revise the\n     allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and\n     other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for\n     one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, or\n     conference reports by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation, provided that such legislation would not\n     increase the deficit for the period of fiscal year 2025 to\n     fiscal year 2034.\n\n     SEC. 3003. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   PROTECTING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     protecting the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social\n     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), which may include\n     strengthening and improving Medicaid for the most vulnerable\n     populations, and extending the life of the Federal Hospital\n     Insurance Trust Fund, by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of\n     the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n     SEC. 3004. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO\n                   GOVERNMENT DEREGULATION.\n\n       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate\n     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,\n     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,\n     and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or\n     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between\n     the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to\n     reducing burdensome and costly Federal Government regulations\n     by passing legislation focused on government deregulation\n     that will decrease new spending arising from such regulations\n     and reassert the proper constitutional role of Congress in\n     the law-making process by the amounts provided in such\n     legislation for those purposes, provided that such\n     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the\n     period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2029 or the\n     period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.\n\n                        TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS\n\n     SEC. 4001. ENFORCEMENT FILING.\n\n       (a) In the House of Representatives.--In the House of\n     Representatives, if a concurrent resolution on the budget for\n     fiscal year 2025 is adopted without the appointment of a\n     committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two\n     Houses with respect to this concurrent resolution on the\n     budget, for the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget\n     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) and applicable rules and\n     requirements set forth in the concurrent resolution on the\n     budget, the allocations provided for in this subsection shall\n     apply in the House of Representatives in the same manner as\n     if such allocations were in a joint explanatory statement\n     accompanying a conference report on the budget for fiscal\n     year 2025. The chair of the Committee on the Budget of the\n     House of Representatives shall submit a statement for\n     publication in the Congressional Record containing--\n       (1) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee\n     allocations for fiscal year 2025 consistent with title I for\n     the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional\n     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633); and\n       (2) for all committees other than the Committee on\n     Appropriations, committee allocations consistent with title I\n     for fiscal year 2025 and for the period of fiscal years 2025\n     through 2034 for the purpose of enforcing 302 of the\n     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633).\n       (b) In the Senate.--If this concurrent resolution on the\n     budget is agreed to by the Senate and House of\n     Representatives without the appointment of a committee of\n     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, the\n     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may\n     submit a statement for publication in the Congressional\n     Record containing--\n       (1) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee\n     allocations for fiscal year 2025 consistent with the levels\n     in title I for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the\n     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633); and\n       (2) for all committees other than the Committee on\n     Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2025,\n     2025 through 2029, and 2025 through 2034 consistent with the\n     levels in title I for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of\n     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633).\n\n     SEC. 4002. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.\n\n       (a) Senate.--\n       (1) In general.--In the Senate, notwithstanding section\n     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.\n     633(a)(1)), section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of\n     1990 (2 U.S.C. 632 note), and section 2009a of title 39,\n     United States Code, the report or the joint explanatory\n     statement accompanying this concurrent resolution on the\n     budget or the statement filed pursuant to section 4001(b), as\n     applicable, shall include in an allocation under section\n     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.\n     633(a)) to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate of\n     amounts for the discretionary administrative expenses of the\n     Social Security Administration and the United States Postal\n     Service.\n       (2) Special rule.--In the Senate, for purposes of enforcing\n     section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2\n     U.S.C. 633(f)), estimates of the level of total new budget\n     authority and total outlays provided by a measure shall\n     include any discretionary amounts described in paragraph (1).\n       (b) House of Representatives.--\n       (1) In general.--In the House of Representatives,\n     notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget\n     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)(1)), section 13301 of the Budget\n     Enforcement Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 632 note), and section\n     2009a of title 39, United States Code, the report or the\n     joint explanatory statement accompanying this concurrent\n     resolution on the budget or the statement filed pursuant to\n     section 4001(a), as applicable, shall include in an\n     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget\n     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) to the Committee on\n     Appropriations of the House of Representatives of amounts for\n     the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social\n     Security Administration and the United States Postal Service.\n       (2) Special rule.--In the House of Representatives, for\n     purposes of enforcing section 302(f) of the Congressional\n     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(f)), estimates of the level\n     of total new budget authority and total outlays provided by a\n     measure shall include any discretionary amounts described in\n     paragraph (1).\n\n     SEC. 4003. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS,\n                   AGGREGATES, AND OTHER BUDGETARY LEVELS.\n\n       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations,\n     aggregates, and other budgetary levels made pursuant to this\n     concurrent resolution shall--\n       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;\n       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and\n       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as\n     practicable.\n       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations, Aggregates, and Other\n     Budgetary Levels.--Revised allocations, aggregates, and other\n     budgetary levels resulting from these adjustments shall be\n     considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act\n     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) as the allocations,\n     aggregates, and other budgetary levels contained in this\n     concurrent resolution.\n       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this\n     concurrent resolution, the levels of new budget authority,\n     outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority,\n     revenues, deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period\n     of fiscal years shall be determined on the basis of estimates\n     made by the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the\n     applicable House of Congress.\n\n     SEC. 4004. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY FOR REVISIONS TO STATUTORY\n                   CAPS.\n\n       During the 119th Congress, if a legislative measure is\n     enacted that revises the discretionary spending limit\n     established under subsection (c) of section 251 of the\n     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2\n     U.S.C. 901), the Chair of the Committee on the Budget of the\n     Senate may, consistent with the legislative measure and as\n     necessary--\n       (1) adjust the allocation required under section 302(a) of\n     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) to the\n     appropriate committee or committees of the Senate; and\n       (2) adjust all other budgetary aggregates, allocations,\n     levels, and limits established under this Concurrent\n     Resolution.\n\n     SEC. 4005. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND\n                   DEFINITIONS.\n\n       (a) House of Representatives.--In the House of\n     Representatives, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may\n     adjust the appropriate aggregates, allocations, and other\n     budgetary levels in this concurrent resolution for any change\n     in budgetary concepts and definitions consistent with section\n     251(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit\n     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(1)).\n       (b) Senate.--In the Senate, upon the enactment of a bill or\n     joint resolution providing for a change in concepts or\n     definitions, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of\n     the Senate may make adjustments to the levels and allocations\n     in this concurrent resolution in accordance with section\n     251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control\n     Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)).\n\n     SEC. 4006. ADJUSTMENT FOR CHANGES IN THE BASELINE.\n\n       The chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of\n     Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on the\n     Budget of the Senate may adjust the allocations, aggregates,\n     and other appropriate budgetary levels in this concurrent\n     resolution to reflect changes resulting from the\n     Congressional Budget Office's updates to its baseline for\n     fiscal years 2025 through 2034, including the effects of\n     legislation enacted before the date on which this concurrent\n     resolution is agreed to.\n\n[[Page S1125]]\n\n     SEC. 4007. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.\n\n       Congress adopts the provisions of this title--\n       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate\n     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such\n     they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House\n     or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such\n     rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that\n     they are inconsistent with such other rules; and\n       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of\n     either the Senate or the House of Representatives to change\n     those rules (insofar as they relate to that House) at any\n     time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as is the\n     case of any other rule of the Senate or House of\n     Representatives.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to\nreconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.\n  The Democratic leader.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, tonight, one amendment at a time,\nDemocrats exposed Republicans' true colors here on the Senate floor.\nFor the first time this year, Senate Republicans were forced to go on\nrecord and defend their plans to cut taxes for Donald Trump's\nbillionaire friends.\n  What happened tonight was only the beginning. This debate is going to\ngo on for weeks and maybe months. Democrats will be ready to come back\nand do this over and over again because Americans deserve to know the\ntruth. And what is the truth? Under Donald Trump's Republican Party,\nbillionaires win and American families lose. Billionaires win and\nAmerican families lose. That is it. That is the Republican agenda.\n  Tonight, we gave Republicans one chance after another to do the right\nthing and put the needs of American families first. We voted on\namendments to prevent any tax cuts for billionaires paid for with cuts\nto Medicaid. Republicans said no. We voted on an amendment to protect\nmaternal and children's healthcare from draconian cuts. Republicans\nsaid no. We voted on an amendment to make it easier for Americans to\nrent or own a home. Republicans said no. Again and again and again,\nRepublicans sent a clear and consistent message from the Senate floor:\nUnder their agenda, billionaires win and American families lose.\n  If Republicans continue with this reckless plan to help their\nbillionaire buddies at the expense of American families, Democrats will\nmake sure the American people know the truth at every opportunity.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2025-02-20-pt1-PgS1075-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 54.58452017046511, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}