{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-06-28-pt1-PgS3613", "2025-06-28", 119, 1, null, null, "PRAYER", "SENATE", "SENATE", "PRAYER", "S3613", "S3647", "[{\"name\": \"John Thune\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles E. Schumer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jeff Merkley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ron Wyden\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Patty Murray\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sheldon Whitehouse\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lindsey Graham\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mike Crapo\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gary C. Peters\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard J. Durbin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Rand Paul\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chris Van Hollen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jack Reed\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard Blumenthal\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Maria Cantwell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bernard Sanders\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Elizabeth Warren\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Brian Schatz\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Thom Tillis\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. S3613", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 112 (Saturday, June 28, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 112 (Saturday, June 28, 2025)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S3613-S3647]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                                 PRAYER\n\n  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. BLACK, offered the following prayer:\n  Let us pray.\n  Lord of creation, You established day and night and the orderly\nmovements of the seasons. That same providence orders the lives of our\nSenators, our Nation, and our world.\n  As our lawmakers seek to do what is right, give them the wisdom to\ndiscern what is best. Show them the pitfalls to avoid and the\nopportunities to seize. Lord, keep them from becoming weary in their\npursuant of Your purposes as they remember Your promise to bring a\nbountiful harvest. May they cling to the enduring principles of Your\ntruth that will lead them to Your desired destination.\n  We pray in Your wonderful Name. Amen.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue reading.\n  The assistant bill clerk continued with the reading of the amendment.\n  (The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore assumed the Chair.)\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The majority leader.\n  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would like to start by just taking a\nmoment to thank the clerks who stayed up all night reading the\namendment and getting us to this point. I know it was a long night and\nthat we are not finished yet, but I want them to know that the Senate\nappreciates their dedication, their stamina, and their service.\n  In just a moment, I am going to make a point of order against the\nsubstitute amendment that I offered on behalf of Chairman Graham. I\nbelieve the Chair should rule that there is no point of order against\nthe amendment because, under the Budget Act, the Senate looks to the\nBudget Committee to assess the budgetary effects of an amendment.\nBasically, this has to do with the current policy baseline that we\ndecided to use in the budget resolution for this bill and how we handle\npoints of order related to it. This is an issue that, I think, we need\nto deal with right off the bat.\n\n                             Point of Order\n\n  Therefore, I make a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(E) of the\nCongressional Budget Act against substitute amendment No. 2360.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the Congressional Budget Act and the\nprecedents of the Senate, the chair must rely on determinations made by\nthe Budget Committee in assessing the budgetary effects of the\namendment.\n  Section 312 of the Budget Act states:\n\n       For purposes of this title and title IV, the levels of new\n     budgetary authority, outlays, direct spending, new\n     entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall\n     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee\n     on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate,\n     as applicable.\n       Unless the Budget Committee, speaking through its chairman,\n     asserts that the amendment causes a violation of the Budget\n     Act, the Chair will not so hold.\n\n  The point of order is not well-taken.\n  The Democrat leader.\n\n                   Appealing the Ruling of the Chair\n\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I\nask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  The yeas and nays are ordered.\n  The appeal is debatable for 1 hour under the Act.\n  The Democrat leader.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank everyone who stayed\novernight to take part in the reading of this bill--my colleagues, the\ncloakrooms, the floor staff--everyone who made it possible.\n  I would say this to the cloakrooms and, particularly, to our great\nfloor staff: You are all amazing. You are the unsung heroes of what\ngoes on here. Without you, none of us could do our work. So thank you\nfor your dedication, your excellence, your perseverance, your strength.\n  Senate Democrats will now commence with four parliamentary inquiries\nto show the hypocrisy of what Republicans are trying to do here in the\nSenate and to expose how they are trying to hide the true costs of\ntheir billionaire giveaways to the American people. I thank my\ncolleagues who will speak momentarily, as well as all of my colleagues\nwho have come to the floor, as we debate this bill before vote-arama.\n  Before I yield to them, I just want to hammer home exactly what is\ngoing on here in the Senate for the people back home.\n  Republicans are about to pass the single most expensive bill in U.S.\nhistory to give tax breaks to billionaires, while taking away Medicaid,\nSNAP benefits, and good-paying jobs for millions of people. The CBO,\njust this morning, said it will explode the debt by $3.3 trillion, and\nthey said it will likely cost more than that over time--closer to $4\ntrillion. Rather than being honest with the American people about the\ntrue costs of their billionaire giveaways, Republicans are doing\nsomething the Senate has never, never done before: deploying fake math\nand accounting gimmicks to hide the true cost of their bill.\n  Look, Republicans can use whatever budgetary gimmicks they want to\ntry and make the math work on paper, but you can't paper over the real-\nlife consequences of adding tens of trillions to the debt--sky-high\ninterest rates, higher borrowing costs for cars, for homes, for credit\ncards. Americans are going to feel this, unfortunately, everywhere they\nlook. Americans' household wealth will be permanently hobbled. There\naren't enough budgetary gimmicks in the world to change that fact. And\nfor what? Why are Republicans doing this? So that billionaires can pay\nless in taxes while tens of millions lose their healthcare benefits and\npay more for everyday expenses.\n  I yield to my colleague from Oregon for the first parliamentary\ninquiry.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n\n                         Parliamentary Inquiry\n\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. When the House bill was first laid before the Senate,\nwas the operative baseline under which it would be considered the\ncurrent law baseline under section 257 of the Balanced Budget and\nEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.\n  The Democrat leader.\n\n                         Parliamentary Inquiry\n\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise for a parliamentary inquiry.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Has the Senate ever used a baseline other than the\ncurrent law baseline under 257 for the enforcement of budget points of\norder, including under section 313 of the Budget Act, during the\nconsideration of a reconciliation measure?\n  Has it ever been used?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.\n  The Senator from Oregon.\n\n                         Parliamentary Inquiry\n\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, what the Republican majority is doing right\nnow on the Senate floor is hiding trillions of dollars in handouts to\ncorporations and the wealthy--trillions of dollars. If you measure this\nbill the way we measure every other reconciliation bill, it simply\ndoesn't comply with the rules. The Republican majority has figured out\na trick that allows them to sidestep the Parliamentarian, violate the\nCongressional Budget Act, and lift the filibuster for Trump's entire\nlegislative agenda in one fell swoop. It is fakery. The budget numbers\nare a fraud, but the deficits will be very real. The prospect of a\ncatastrophic death spiral is very real. The hardship this terrible bill\nis going to inflict on tens of millions of Americans will be very real.\n  So my parliamentary inquiry will proceed now: Does the score of the\nfinance title of the Senate substitute, which the chairman asserts\ncomplies with its instruction, rely on the use of two distinct\nbaselines: current policy for taxes and current law for health\nprovisions like Medicaid?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.\n  The Senator from Washington.\n\n                         Parliamentary Inquiry\n\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state her inquiry.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Are the remaining nine titles of the Senate substitute\nscored by the CBO using a current law 257 baseline?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes\n  The Senator from Washington.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have been here a long time. Not only\nhave I been the Budget chair but I am the longest serving Democrat on\nthat committee, and in my 33 years here in the\n\n[[Page S3614]]\n\nU.S. Senate, things have never, never worked this way where one party\nso egregiously ignores precedent, process, and the Parliamentarian, and\ndoes that all in order to wipe away trillions of dollars of costs for a\nbill that could just be the most expensive legislation this body ever\npasses.\n  Forget Senate procedure for a minute. Math has never worked that way.\nI taught preschool, and I will tell you, even our littlest kids know\nthe difference between a trillion and zero. It doesn't take a\npreschooler to tell you they are using magic math or that you can't\njust ignore the rules you don't like.\n  How many times have my colleagues cried about the debt? How many\ntimes have they told me: I know you want to invest in childcare, Patty,\nbut we have got to get this budget under control?\n  But now that it is tax cuts for billionaires and corporations,\nsuddenly, the budget doesn't matter anymore. Suddenly, the rules do not\nmatter anymore. Suddenly, a couple trillion goes away with a sprinkle\nof fairy dust, and bypassing the Parliamentarian and precedent isn't\nreally bypassing if you just close your eyes and just pretend real\nhard.\n  Have you no shame? If you think you can look the American people in\nthe face and tell them we have to bring down the debt after passing\nwhat might be the most expensive bill in history--if you think you can\ndo that and then be taken seriously, well, do you know what? If you\nbelieve that, maybe you are foolish enough to think that zero and a\ntrillion are the same.\n  I can't believe this is what we are doing today, because I can tell\nyou right now, if this happens, we will all laugh you out of the room\nbecause we have never seen anything like this, not in my time here in\nthe Senate, not in my time on this planet. We are not going to let\nanyone forget that you are trashing the rules in order to pass this\negregious bill.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I want to share a couple comments with my\ncolleagues, my Republican colleagues, because I have made these remarks\non the floor. Generally, the floor is empty, but you are here now.\n  In 1974, 100 Senators agreed on reconciliation as a fast track,\nfilibuster-free, but only for one purpose: reducing the deficit. It had\nthree pillars: first, reduce the deficit over a 10-year period; second,\nreduce the deficit in each and every year after that 10-year period in\neach title of the bill; and, third, use honest numbers.\n  In 1996, the Republican team was in the majority and decided on a\nnuclear option to allow that reconciliation process to be used to\nincrease deficits in the 10-year window. That was unfortunate because\nit destroyed the agreement all 100 Senators had agreed to in 1974.\n  But now, today, if we proceed with this current policy baseline,\nthere are two other pillars that you are destroying of the architecture\nto create fiscal discipline. The second pillar was no deficits after\nthe 10-year period. That has been destroyed. The third was to use\nhonest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office on a current law\nbasis comparing each provision in the bill as compared to the provision\nnot being in the bill.\n  So here we are, taking a step that is as significant as it was in\n1996. All three pillars will be brought down not by Democrats but by\nRepublicans. It is not necessary to do this to get what you want within\nthe 10-year period. Why tear down these additional two pillars of\nhonesty about the numbers--of no more smoke and mirrors--and creating\ndeficits after the 10-year period? It is extremely unfortunate if you\npress forward with that vision in this bill.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to pick up on the point that my\ncolleague from Washington State touched on.\n  Everybody ought to understand that this is the nuclear option. It is\njust hidden behind a whole lot of Washington, DC, lingo. The only\ndifference is, instead of pressing a big nuclear button right at the\nbeginning of the Congress, Republicans decided that they would hide\nbehind the cloak of Senate procedure and go nuclear for every\nindividual bill they want to pass on party lines.\n  I just say to my colleagues: There is going to be a lot of horrendous\nmesses to clean up after this legislation.\n  But my colleagues need to understand that the move, as my colleague\nfrom Washington State has said, cuts both ways.\n  I yield the floor.\n\n                      Unanimous Consent Agreement\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrat leader.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask that debate time come off the bill\nunless otherwise advised.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.\n\n                                 H.R. 1\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in this place where big money now\nrules and in which fakery is now the order of the day and numbers no\nlonger have to be real, there is one point that stands out, and that is\nthat the fakery on the floor is belied by the language of the bill. If\nthese assertions were true, they would not need to raise the debt\nlimit.\n  All of these fun and games, all of this parliamentary mischief that\nis happening right now crashes into the fact that, in real markets, in\nthe real world outside of this fakery, the debt limit is actually a\nreal thing.\n  I will take a moment to read from page 754 of this midnight\nmonstrosity, what it actually says, where it collides with the real\nworld.\n\n       Subtitle C--Increase in Debt Limit.\n       SEC. 72001. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.\n\n  Line 20:\n\n       The limitation under section 3101(b) of title 31, United\n     States Code, as most recently increased by section 401(b) of\n     Public Law 118-5 (31 U.S.C. 3101 note) is increased by\n     $5,000,000,000,000.\n\n  Five trillion dollars--that is the real number here. That is where\nthe rubber hits the road in real life.\n  The maneuver that is being pulled right now to avoid that fact--the\nfact that the debt limit has to be increased by $5 trillion so the\nRepublicans can give immense tax breaks to billionaires--has not been\nused for this before.\n  I used it once. In the year 2000, a deal had been struck on how to\nscore activities of the Power Marketing Administration. Does anybody\nreally know about the Power Marketing Administration? It is a small\nthing.\n  Over the years, the Congressional Budget Office started scoring the\nprogram differently than the Senate had agreed to in 2000. So in 2023\nand 2024, the Senate Budget chair--me--and the House Budget chair,\nJodey Arrington, on a bipartisan basis invoked this section to have CBO\nreturn to the original Senate agreement and not the variation that they\nhad created.\n  This is what section 312 has been used for--to resolve technical\nambiguity to advance a bipartisan appropriations deal, not to create\nSenate floor fakery, belied by the $5 trillion debt limit hike that\nRepublicans are obliged to pass to make good on this huge billionaire\nblowout we are forcing through the Senate floor now.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.\n  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am using and yielding time off the bill.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the debate and eventual voting on the Big\nBeautiful Bill has begun. Hallelujah. It has taken a while for us to\nget here, but we are going to have a debate worthy of a great country.\nWe will have what they think and what we think, and we are going to\nvote on this bill in the coming days. I am excited about that. I have\nworked a long time with my colleagues to get to where we are today.\n  So, to the American people, the debate is beginning right now\nregarding the Big Beautiful Bill. I will tell you why that is good news\nfor you, but let me take a little bit of time to talk about current\npolicy versus current law.\n  I know everybody is on the edge of their seat at home, but here is\nwhat I would tell you about numbers and Budget chairmen. I am not the\nfirst Budget chairmen. There have been those who came before me. In\n2008,\n\n[[Page S3615]]\n\nChairman Kent Conrad--a really nice guy from North Dakota--used a new\nbaseline in the budget so he could get the farm bill in the budget.\n  Judd Gregg--a really smart guy, a former Budget chairman--said:\n\n       The chairman of the Budget Committee declared the new\n     baseline under a new budget. . . . The Budget chairman has a\n     right to do that.\n\n  That is what I am doing. I am setting the numbers. The\nParliamentarian said that is my job as Budget chairman.\n  The resolution we are operating under to get us here--we voted to\nmake that the case. So we are not doing anything sneaky. We actually\nvoted to give me the authority to do this, and it passed.\n  Again, I am not the first chairman to change a baseline for different\nreasons--one, to get the farm bill in, and on another occasion, Senator\nSanders changed the baseline in 2022, when he was Budget chairman,\nunder budget reconciliation to issue a budget rule allowing the numbers\nto change to get more money for Head Start. So Senator Sanders, as\nBudget chairman, directed that a new rule be written to get more money\nfor Head Start.\n\n  So don't tell me you have never done this before in terms of changing\nthe baseline as Budget chairman.\n  The Budget chairman, under 312, sets the baseline. This has been\nacknowledged by Republicans and Democrats. The baseline has been\nchanged in the past based on the Budget Committee chairman's desire,\none, to get a farm bill in, and the other, to change the numbers--a new\nrule--to get Head Start spending. So this has been done before.\n  But I will be the first to say that what we are doing here is\nhistoric in a good way.\n  In 2017, we passed the Trump tax cuts. They are due to expire in\nDecember. Why is that? Before I got here, current law was the way to\nscore or implement tax policy. After 10 years, the tax cuts expired--\ncurrent law.\n  As Budget chairman, I have decided to use current policy when it\ncomes to cutting taxes. If you use current policy, they never expire.\nSo the policies that were created in 2017 would not end in December;\nthey would continue. That is a good thing for the American people, and\nthat is a good thing for the economy because it gives you certainty.\n  So I made a decision as Budget chairman, working with my colleagues,\nto look at tax cuts as something important for the country, to give\ncertainty to businesses and individuals, and make sure that after 10\nyears, they don't arbitrarily go away and have a cliff. I made that\ndecision, my colleagues backed me up, and that is in the budget\nresolution governing the debate we are here for today.\n  So why do we want to make the tax cuts permanent? Because if they\nexpire in December, the average family of four in South Carolina will\nhave a $1,700 increase. I don't want that, and I bet you people at home\ndon't want that. So we have to deal with that. That cliff is coming,\nand not only do I want to avoid that cliff, I don't want to put us in\nthat position ever again.\n  The tax cuts have generated more revenue for the government than CBO\nestimated in 2017.\n  The one thing about our friends at CBO--I appreciate all your hard\nwork; you have worked really hard--when it comes to taxing, they always\nget it wrong about how much revenue is to be collected.\n  When you look at the years that have passed since 2017, on the\ncorporate side and on the individual side, the revenue to the\ngovernment has actually grown because of those tax cuts, and that is a\ngood thing. So cutting taxes means more money for you and your family.\n  Our friends on the other side, if you are waiting on them to cut your\ntaxes, you are going to die waiting. They are never going to do it. Why\nare we doing it? Because they won't do it. We could never get 60 votes\nfor this.\n  The bottom line is, we are going to make these tax cuts permanent.\nThat is a good thing for businesses. Expensing will be allowed, so you\ncan invest in growing your business. You can buy new equipment. You can\nwrite it off sooner. That will get more activity in the economy. It is\nnot me saying that; there is a track record.\n  Mr. President, you have been in business. This stuff works. They\ndon't like it, but it works. If you are in business, and the Tax Code\nencourages you to invest in your business, you will.\n  This stuff literally works, and they hate it because it is money that\ncould have gone to the government but went back into the economy. What\nthey don't realize is, actually, the government gets more money. They\njust keep spending it. We could do better on the spending side, and we\nare going to do better on the spending side.\n  So this bill makes the 2017 tax cuts permanent. It avoids a tax\nincrease for your family that is coming in December if we don't act\nnow.\n  It secures the border. One of the reasons there are more of us than\nour Democratic friends is how you screwed the country up for the last 4\nyears. We went from secure borders to completely open borders, absolute\nchaos. That is why we are winning, and you are losing.\n  You want to take us back to open borders. We are not going. We are\nnot going back to your policies that allowed 8.3 million encounters at\nthe border, 1.7 million ``got-aways,'' and chaos in cities and\ncommunities.\n  We are not going back to the policies that led to Laken Riley's\nmurder in Georgia, where the man convicted of murdering her was\ncaptured several times, released because there was no detention space\nto hold him in Texas and he left--a free man--went to Georgia, and\nkilled this lady. That has happened too many times, and it is going to\nstop.\n  Now, what are we doing to secure the border? We went from lawless\nborders to the most secure borders in 6 months because of President\nTrump.\n  President Trump, you should be exceedingly proud--Homan, the whole\nteam. You have locked that border down. But we want to do it in a way\nthat it will stay locked down for the President after you and beyond.\n  So how do we secure the gains made by President Trump and his team?\nWe are going to, in this bill, hire more ICE agents to expedite removal\nof people who shouldn't be here, particularly criminal elements, people\nwho are dangerous. We are going to finish the wall. Not one Democrat--\nmaybe one--no way would we get 60 votes to hire more ICE agents. No way\nwould we get Democratic help to finish the wall. We are going to go\nfrom 40,000 detention beds to 125,000. This securing the border is\nabout $175 billion. New technology along the border and fiber cable so\nwe don't go back to the days of open borders--this is in the bill.\n  To those of you who voted for us and President Trump to secure the\nborder, we are delivering through this bill. And they would never do\nwhat we are doing. I will be the first to admit, when it comes to\nsecuring the border, they are never going to do what we are doing. We\nare hiring more ICE agents; we are finishing the wall; and we are\nincreasing more detention beds so we don't let people out that can go\nand murder.\n  I am very proud of this. I wrote this part. This is money well spent.\nThis will secure that border in perpetuity.\n  President Trump, this is your bill. It is in our bill. Well done.\n  To my friends on the other side, you had your chance, and you screwed\nit up big time. That is why we are in charge.\n  Revitalized our military. The world is a dangerous place. We have\n$150 billion in this bill to help build out the Golden Dome, to help\nimprove the quality of life of the men and women serving the military\nby improving their barracks and housing. They need the money--more\nweapons--to send this bill, and we didn't have to get extorted to buy a\nbunch of butter to get $150 billion.\n  We reduced government spending over a decade by $1.6 trillion. We are\nrunning a deficit in our national debt of $37 trillion. So what have we\ndone here?\n  In the last 5 years, from 2020, basically, to now, Medicaid has grown\nby 50 percent. So what has happened is that Medicaid was originally\nintended for children and poor families--children--and people who were\ndisabled and couldn't work to provide healthcare.\n  Count me in for that. Makes lot of sense.\n  Along comes President Obama. He expands Medicaid to include able-\nbodied adults for the first time. And what he did was he incentivized\nStates to include these people in Medicaid. For every new able-bodied\nadult, you get 90 percent of the cost from the Federal\n\n[[Page S3616]]\n\nGovernment, 10 percent from the States, and Medicaid has grown 50\npercent. It is going to take over Medicare because of what President\nObama did.\n  So what are we going to do? We are going to try to deal with that in\na responsible way.\n  What about this idea: If you are not a child, if you are not\ndisabled--if you are able-bodied and you don't have any children under\n14--we are going to have a 20-hour-a-week work requirement for you to\nstay on Medicaid.\n  That is a good thing. It is a good thing for the individual involved\nto be working. It is a good thing for the taxpayer for them to be\nworking. But that seems to be a crime on the other side to ask somebody\nto work that can work.\n  How many people out there listening to this--I don't know how many\nthere are--but are you working every day? Are you going to work with\nkids? A lot of people do that, by the way.\n  So one of the reforms in this bill is to introduce a work requirement\nto the additional population that President Obama put on Medicaid that\nwas never intended under the original purpose of Medicaid. This work\nrequirement is going to save a bunch of money.\n  Finally, we are addressing the biggest scam I have seen in a very\nlong time. Somewhere along the line, somebody figured out at the State\nlevel, if you tax doctors and hospitals and medical providers on the\nfunds they get and take that revenue, you can actually get more\nMedicaid money. This is a money laundering scheme. It needs to come to\nan end as we know it.\n  States have gone up to 6 percent of a provider tax. They take that\ntax revenue, and they use it to get more money from the Federal\nGovernment. The hospitals and doctors don't lose. They get the money\nback. The State doesn't lose. They get more money. The only group that\nloses is the Federal Government, and we are deep, deep in debt.\n  So we are going to reform the provider tax system that I think is\nabusive--very abusive.\n  As to Medicaid, it is on a growth trajectory that will overtake\nMedicare. Now is the time to put commonsense reform in place not only\nto slow the growth--and we are not talking about cutting Medicaid, we\nare slowing the growth--but try to create some sense of fiscal\nresponsibility.\n  So to our chairman of the Finance Committee, you have constructed a\npackage better than 2017. You have included some growth elements in the\npackage that will allow the economy to grow because it will be in\nbusiness's interest to invest, and I want to applaud you for this\ngrowth package.\n  Now what does this all mean? Current policy, current law.\n  If you do what I have decided to do, make the tax cuts permanent and\nyou implement these reforms to Medicaid in other areas, you will, over\nthe next 10 years, reduce the deficit by $507 billion. That is CBO, not\nme.\n  Now, how do you do that? You grow the economy, and you begin to\ncontrol spending in a commonsense way. Most people can relate to that\nbecause they do it all the time. People at home sometimes have to work\nextra to meet the needs of their family, and they have to tighten their\nbelt. So what have we achieved here in the One Big Beautiful Bill?\n  We are going make your border as secure as it possibly can be and\nnever go back to open borders. We are going to put in place border\nsecurity measures to keep it secure. We are going to make the tax cuts\npermanent so your taxes do not go up in December of this year, and we\nare going to add additional pro-growth policies to help our economy.\n  We are going to reform Medicaid in a way that makes sense, deal with\nthe waste, fraud, and abuse of that program so that there is more money\nfor the disabled and children because the more money you give the able-\nbodied who can work is less money for children and people on\ndisability.\n  And one of the most perverse things about what President Obama did is\nthat the reimbursement rates to States are higher for able-bodied\nadults than they are for disabled people and children--90 percent. So\nPresident Obama created a system to entice States--lure them in--to add\npeople to Medicaid that are not disabled, not poor children, because\nhis goal was to put everybody in the country under government-run\nhealthcare. And the government reimbursement is higher for an able-\nbodied person than it is for a poor child or a disabled person.\n\n  We are going to stop that because that is not fair. It is not fair to\nthe taxpayer. It is not fair to the population that we are trying to\nhelp.\n  So we are going to control spending in a commonsense way; we are\ngoing to revitalize our military at a time of great need; we are going\nto secure the border; and we are going to make the tax cuts that expire\nin December permanent so we don't have to deal with this every 10\nyears.\n  It is a big beautiful bill if you believe in cutting people's taxes,\nsecuring the border, having a strong military, and controlling\ngovernment spending.\n  It is a nightmare--this bill--for those who want to raise taxes, who\nwant open borders, who want a weak military, and never want to control\none dime of Federal spending.\n  This bill is your nightmare if you are for open borders. This bill is\nyour nightmare if you want the government to grow without any\nlimitation. This bill is your nightmare if you want a weak military\nbecause it is going to give us a stronger military.\n  So why do we have this debate? That is what they--through years of\neffort--have done. The military is always the last thing that gets\nfunded when they are in charge. When they are in charge, you have no\nborder--completely broken, millions of people running through our\ncountry lawless.\n  When they are in charge, there is no limit to growing the government.\nThey entice everybody to grow the government. And when they are in\ncharge, they are never going to cut your taxes in any meaningful way.\n  The tax rates since 2017--the top rate has been 37. If these tax cuts\nexpire, your taxes--if you are a family of four--will go up by $1,700,\nand we will go back to the 49.6 rate.\n  Here is a question for the country: How much should the Federal\nGovernment take of anybody's income? What is a fair share?\n  Thirty-seven percent seems pretty damn fair to me--over a third of\nwhat you make, and that doesn't count State and local taxes.\n  The number they would pick is probably 90.\n  So is 37 percent fair? I think yes. Most Americans think 25 percent\nis fair. You know, Jesus wants 10 percent. There is no number they\nwon't embrace. So somewhere between 90 and 10--37 is fair.\n  This is not rewarding the wealthy; it is creating a number that makes\nsense. Thirty-seven percent going to the Federal Government is a fair\nshare. It is over a third of what you make. That doesn't count State\nand local taxes.\n  This has been long. It is been hard, but we are about done. In a\ncouple of days, we are going to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill.\nPresident Trump is going to sign it. Mike Crapo and his staff deserve\nat least one day off.\n  I cannot thank you enough for what you and your team have done. To my\nbudgeteers, you have been terrific. You have worked really hard. To CBO\nand Joint Tax and all these people, hats off to your efforts to get us\na quality product.\n  To all of my colleagues who have rode the boat with us, we are about\nto reach the shore. And when this boat comes ashore, every family in\nAmerica can heave a sigh of relief. Your taxes will not go up this\nDecember. You will get a Christmas present of not having a tax\nincrease.\n  To those who have been yearning for a secure border, it will be\nsecure. To those men and women in the uniform, you are going to get\nsome help. You desperately need it. To those who think we should do\nsomething about the government's growth in a commonsense way, we have\nachieved that.\n  I am very proud of this bill. I am very proud of President Trump. I\nam very proud of the Republican team that has gotten us to this point.\n  To my Democratic colleagues, we will work together where we can, but\nnobody over here ever expects you to do anything about the border\nbecause you have proven you can't. Nobody over here believes you are\never going to reduce the size of government because you don't want to.\n  The bottom line is, we are about to make history, Mr. President. This\nis your first term. I don't know what comes later for you. I hope you\nare\n\n[[Page S3617]]\n\nhere for a long time if that is what you want to be. You are a great\nSenator. You are a good businessman. You made a real success story:\nfamily from Colombia, created a lot of job opportunities.\n  I doubt if you will ever do anything more important than this.\n  Senator Crapo, you have been here a while. You are one of the\nsmartest guys I have ever met. Everything you have done in all your\nlife has led to this moment. This is what you were built to do. This is\nwhat you were meant to do. You are the right man at the right time to\ndo what this country desperately needs to stay on track to be safe and\nprosperous.\n  To all my colleagues who are going to vote for this bill, you should\nbe proud, and you should talk about it because it is going to make us\nall safer, and it is going to make us all more prosperous.\n  My being Budget chairman is a quirk in the history of the Senate.\nThis is not my thing normally, but I have really gotten into it. And I\nhave learned a lot thanks to my colleagues, and I am proud to have the\nhonor of being Budget chairman at a time I think it matters the most.\n  Mr. President, with that, I yield to my good friend.\n  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators,\nwhatever they are, be permitted on the floor of the Senate during\nconsideration of the bill.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The Senator from Idaho.\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleague\nfrom South Carolina Senator Graham for his very kind words. I return\nthe same kind of compliments to him for his great work in helping to\nbuild this bill and get us moved to this point.\n  I am going to make just a few remarks right now in response to some\nof the allegations and mischaracterizations that my colleagues on the\nother side have made about how this bill has been structured in terms\nof its evaluation and its scoring. And then, later, I will come and\ngive a much longer speech--I am sorry, sir--on the bill itself.\n  Mr. President, the things that were said this morning just have to be\nresponded to. First of all, it was said that the reason that we are\ngoing to increase the debt ceiling in the bill is because we are\nspending so much money and driving the deficit up.\n  Well, first of all, our bill drives the deficit down, not up; and,\nsecondly, the reason we are dealing with the debt ceiling in the bill\nis because, under the previous administration's operations, the debt\nceiling has already been breached. It was breached on January 2, and we\nare limping along with extraordinary measures--that is what we call\nthem here in Washington--to try to keep the government funded until\nCongress can extend the debt ceiling.\n  This has nothing to do with President Trump. It happened before he\neven was sworn into office. It has nothing to do with this bill. It has\nto do with the profligate spending that drove us into a breach of the\ndebt ceiling on January 2.\n  Secondly, my colleagues on the other side tried to characterize our\nchoice of the current policy baseline as a gimmick and said it has\nnever been done before.\n  Well, they should have been more careful in their words because the\ncurrent policy baseline is currently utilized in the current CBO\nbaseline for many spending programs. In fact, many spending programs--\nabout $2.5 trillion of spending programs--are measured under the\ncurrent treatment which the Democrats have been using for decades to\nmake it so they don't have to count spending increases as an increase\nin the deficit.\n  They are correct that that policy has never been applied to taxes\nbefore, because it was not intended to apply to taxes. That ruling and\nthat system that was set up was intentionally designed to favor tax\nincreases over spending cuts and to force Congress to increase taxes\nand increase spending. It was a strategy to achieve what we all know as\ntax and spend.\n  And no matter how they try to cover it over, today, in their debate,\nit comes down to this: They are furious that we refuse to raise taxes\nin America by $4.3 trillion on Americans; and they claim that our\nrefusal to raise your taxes, America, is going to run up the deficit\nbecause they can't get $4 trillion more of your tax revenue into their\npockets.\n  Well, the first failure of that rationale is, if you believe that you\ngive them $4.5 trillion by letting them raise your taxes again, if you\nbelieve they are going to use that to pay the debt down, let me tell\nyou, there is not a tax increase that I have seen in this Congress, in\nmy lifetime, that was used to pay the debt down. It was used to\nincrease spending. It is called tax and spend, and it is that bias in\nour scoring system that we are fixing today. We are fixing it so that\ncurrent policy is how you treat taxes, just like you treat $2.5\ntrillion of spending this year in your scoring system. We are evening\nthe balance board between taxing and spending, and America should\nbreathe a sigh of relief that, finally, we are fixing our scoring\nprocedures so that we don't have a built-in drive to increase taxes.\n  Let's put it another way. One of my colleagues said that even\nchildren can understand the difference between a trillion dollars and\nzero dollars. I think they can also understand that if you don't raise\ntaxes, you are not changing the Tax Code; you are making it bring in\nthe same revenue that it brought in before. You are not increasing the\ndeficit; you are protecting their wallets.\n  The bottom line here is very simple. I think every American--at least\n90 percent of them--intuitively understand that the refusal to let your\ntaxes go up by $4 trillion is not a deficit increase. You are not\nresponsible. Us keeping your money in your pocket is not making you\nresponsible for increasing the deficit. Deficit increases come when\nCongress keeps spending your money and never ever controls its\nspending. The problem is not a lack of revenue; it is too much\nspending.\n  So let's make it clear. This is not a gimmick. The gimmick is the one\nthat has been used for all these years. We are making a balance between\nthe treatment of tax and spend so that those taxpayers in America have\nat least a fair chance against the rules of this Chamber.\n\n  Now, one other point that I think needs to be made here is there was\na lot of talk on the other side--and then I will stop and bring in my\nlonger speech later. One other point that needs to be made here is that\nit was suggested that this has never been done before, even on taxes.\nWell, there is a President named President Obama, who faced a similar\nsituation like we face today. Only, then, he was President when a huge\ntax cut that President Bush had accomplished was expiring. And all of\nthose tax cuts that President Bush had been able to achieve were going\nto go away, and everybody's taxes were going to go up. And President\nObama said: No, I am not going to let that happen.\n  So he put a bill out on the floor to stop those tax increases from\nhappening. And he was attacked, actually, for increasing the deficit by\nnot letting taxes go up. And President Obama, through his OMB Deputy\nDirector, said that keeping tax policy current should be scored under a\ncurrent policy and that his act in letting those tax increases be kept\nin place should be scored as current policy, not as a tax increase.\n  So you have got one of your own Presidents from the Democratic Party\nsaying that letting existing tax law stay in place and protecting\nagainst huge tax increases on the American people is the appropriate\napproach to take; that current policy--and those are their words--is\nthe way we should treat tax policy.\n  So I say to everybody in America who has been hearing all the\npolitics of fear about what we are doing here in running up the\ndeficit: You need to remember that only in Washington, DC, is the\nrefusal to raise your taxes an increase in the deficit. And we are not\ngoing to let that happen.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, time will be charged\nequally to both sides.\n  The Senator from Michigan.\n  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the widely\nirresponsible legislation that is before us now. Although our\ncolleagues are calling it the Big Beautiful Bill, this bill would\ninstead be a betrayal to our economic future, hard-working American\n\n[[Page S3618]]\n\nfamilies, and some of our most vulnerable seniors, children, and people\nwith disabilities.\n  This bill will blow up our national debt, kick millions of people off\nof their healthcare, and take food off of families' tables, while\ncutting food assistance.\n  And for what? What are our colleagues mortgaging our country's future\nfor? What are they slashing healthcare and food assistance to pay for?\n  Well, they are doing it for tax cuts for billionaires.\n  So before my colleagues rush to pass this irresponsible, reckless\nlegislation, let's take a moment to go through exactly how much harm\nthis bill will actually cause and hear from the people in my State who\nwill suffer if this bill becomes law.\n  To start, this bill will blow up the national debt. Since President\nGeorge Washington gave his Farewell Address, our Nation's leaders have\nwarned against the dangers of accumulating a national debt. Fifteen\nyears ago, ADM Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of\nStaff, stated:\n\n       The most significant threat to our national security is our\n     debt.\n\n  The national debt is at an alltime high--$36.2 trillion. And just in\nthe last 16 years, it has tripled. Our annual deficits frequently\nexceed $1.5 trillion, including a record $3.1 trillion deficit in\nfiscal year 2020 during the Trump administration.\n\n  Unfortunately, these are the first of many grave financial milestones\nthat we face. Within the next decade, our country will spend more on\nservicing the debt than we do on any other Federal account outside of\nSocial Security.\n  Our fiscal house is basically on fire, but if our Republican\ncolleagues jam through this bill, it is not going to pour water on that\nfire, it is going to pour gasoline on those flames.\n  Democrats have tried to make efforts to pay down that debt in recent\nyears. In fact, under the Inflation Reduction Act--a law that this bill\nattempts to actually gut--we reduced the deficit in that bill by nearly\n$250 billion. In 2023, we passed the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility\nAct, which responsibly addressed the debt ceiling and had the potential\nto reduce deficits by up to $1.5 trillion. But, unfortunately, the bill\nbefore us basically wipes all of that away.\n  I have always said that I am open to making smart cuts to spending,\nbut those cuts should be matched with increases in revenue. Doing so\nwould put us back on a sustainable financial path. Our Republican\ncolleagues are doing the exact opposite. They are making drastic cuts\nto revenue, and according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on\nTaxation, the tax provisions in this bill alone would decrease revenues\nby $4.2 trillion and add--yes, add--$3 trillion to our national debt.\n  This is a recipe for disaster. If we face another emergency like a\npandemic or global financial crisis, we will be too hamstrung by our\ndebt to respond effectively.\n  We are on the brink of a financial disaster, and passing this bill\ncould push us over that edge--all so my Republican colleagues can cut\ntaxes for billionaires. At the same time, our Republican colleagues are\nnot making smart, sensible spending cuts to cover the costs of those\nbillionaire tax cuts. Instead, they are gutting healthcare for millions\nof Americans, including hundreds of thousands of Michiganders. It is\nreckless, and it is wrong.\n  Medicaid is a lifeline for people in every single community across\nthis country. It ensures that millions of Michiganders and Americans\ncan have access to quality, affordable healthcare.\n  Right now, folks across my home State of Michigan are scared--are\nscared about what this bill will mean for their families.\n  I have heard from thousands of my constituents from every corner of\nthe State of Michigan on how these cuts are going to hurt them. So\ntoday, I just want to tell you, through my constituents' stories, just\nhow detrimental this bill will be for most Americans.\n  Take Isaac from Lansing for example, who says Medicaid is the only\nlifeline he has to pay for the medicine that literally--literally--\nkeeps him alive.\n  We have also seen how more and more Michiganders and people all\nacross our Nation have shouldered the burden of serving as a primary\ncaregiver for an aging parent. It is the ultimate gift that we can give\nto the people who have raised us. But the cost of critical nursing home\nand assisted living care continues to rise. Medicaid has become an\nessential way for our aging seniors to pay for the care they need.\n  Take Gwen from Grand Rapids, who says that she wouldn't be able to\npay for an assisted living facility for her grandmother without\nMedicaid.\n  Many of us know someone or maybe even love someone who lives with a\ndisability. Thanks to Medicaid, people with disabilities can get the\ncare that allows them to live healthy and independent lives. That is\nthe case for Wanda from Westland, who takes medication for an eye\ncondition. Without Medicaid, she would not be able to afford her\nmedication, and she could actually go blind.\n  As too many of us know from personal experiences or from friends and\nloved ones, our country is facing a mental health crisis. Medicaid has\nbecome a saving grace for those who desperately need mental healthcare\nbut simply cannot afford it.\n  Take Allen from Fort Gratiot, who says that losing Medicaid would\nfeel like losing the life he has been given back through mental health\ncare through Medicaid.\n  Under this bill, rural communities will be especially impacted by\ncuts to Medicaid. In some counties in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, there\nis only one healthcare provider, meaning some Michiganders will have to\ntravel up to 50 miles to get routine or emergency care. Medicaid helps\nkeep these hospitals open. If this bill passes, people in these rural\ncommunities are going to be cut off from basic health services.\n  Medicaid also plays an essential role in making sure that children\nacross Michigan get the care they need. I heard from Gladys, a mother\nfrom Flint, who says that Medicaid is the only reason her kids can get\ntheir asthma medication or have regular health checkups. Expecting\nmothers also reached out to share their concerns. While she is busy\npreparing to welcome a newborn baby into the world, Chelsea from\nFennville is now afraid that she will lose her access to both pre- and\npostnatal care under this absolutely disastrous bill.\n  I simply can't understand how my Republican colleagues would leave\nthousands--thousands--of people across Michigan without the care they\nneed, all so they can give a tax break to billionaires.\n  On top of that, my Republican colleagues are also proposing deep,\nharmful cuts to food assistance delivered through SNAP. SNAP serves as\nan absolute lifeline for millions of Americans, including children,\nseniors, people with disabilities, and working families.\n  So, simply put, if this bill is passed, it will mean people in\nMichigan and all across our country will go hungry. They will not be\nable to put food on the table, while billionaires pay less taxes. That\nis just wrong. But it also makes no economic sense, either. Every\ndollar in SNAP benefits generates more than $1.50 in economic\nactivities. This supports local grocery stores, farmers all across our\ncountry, and the entire food supply chain. So on top of jeopardizing\nfamilies' ability to put food on the table, to feed their children,\nthese proposed SNAP cuts would also hurt businesses and jobs,\nparticularly in rural America and in low-income areas.\n\n  This bill produces the most amount of pain for the least amount of\ngain of any legislation I can remember in all the years I have had the\nprivilege of serving here in the Senate. I can't believe that we are\nstanding here debating this reckless, irresponsible bill. The harm this\nbill will do to the American people and to the people in my State of\nMichigan who are counting on Medicaid for healthcare and on food\nassistance to help feed their families is absolutely reprehensible. The\ndamage this bill will do to our Nation's economic security is not only\nreckless, it is unconscionable.\n  This is not what our constituents want us to be focused on. They want\nus to help make their lives better. But instead of focusing on that,\nhere we are on the brink of passing a bill so irresponsible that it\nwill destroy our country's economic health, harm millions of\nAmericans--all so a handful of billionaires, the wealthiest of the\n\n[[Page S3619]]\n\nwealthy, can have another tax break. I will never support such a\nreckless and catastrophic plan.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.\n  MR. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am here to talk now about the centerpiece\nof this reconciliation bill: making the 2017 tax cuts permanent. The\nOne Big Beautiful Bill prevents the largest tax hike in history and\nprovides groundbreaking new tax relief for middle-class workers and\nfamilies.\n  This legislation permanently extends the Trump tax cuts, which\nproportionately benefited the middle class the most. If these tax cuts\nwere allowed to expire, taxpayers in all income groups would see\nmassive tax hikes. A point that my colleagues on the other side seem to\nconsistently forget or ignore is that the vast majority of them--$2.6\ntrillion worth of those tax increases--would fall on taxpayers making\nless than $400,000 per year, and the vast majority of that is on\ntaxpayers making and earning in the middle and lower middle income\ncategories.\n  But before I go on to discuss what would happen, I want to address an\nissue that is just a constant, constant theme on the other side, and\nthat is that this bill is going to be a huge increase in the deficit.\n  Now, here is a quick, handwritten chart that my colleague from South\nCarolina made quickly to respond to that.\n  You heard the previous speaker say that CBO has scored this bill to\nhave a huge, multitrillion-dollar deficit increase. The fact is that\nCBO has scored this bill to have a $507 billion deficit reduction--you\nheard that right: a $507 billion deficit reduction. Later on in my\nremarks, I will point out that that score doesn't even take into\naccount the growth in the economy and the revenue that will come to our\nTreasury from revitalizing and giving a boost to our economy.\n  So now let's go to the next chart. What will happen if we don't do\nthis? What will happen if we do what the Democrats are demanding that\nwe do, and that is to let this tax increase happen so that they can say\nthey are going to use it to pay the deficit down? The average family of\nfour would see a tax hike of $1,700, and their child tax credit would\nbe cut in half. Twenty million small business owners would face massive\ntax hikes, with some of them facing rates as high as 43 percent. The\nstandard deduction, which simplifies tax filing for 90 percent of\nAmericans, would be cut in half. Small businesses and farms would see\ntheir debt exemption cut in half.\n  The Council of Economic Advisers warns us that this $4 trillion tax\nhike would also lead to an economic downturn and potential recessionary\nheadwinds, noting that the impacts would disproportionately fall on\nyoung people, minorities, and workers without college degrees.\n  We have been working for more than a year on legislation that\nprevents that outcome and provides an opportunity for us to have\nadditional tax relief--additional tax relief that is specifically\ntargeted to benefit low- and middle-income families and workers.\n  Despite the rhetoric of fear, the rhetoric about tax cuts being for\nbillionaires and corporations, the reality is that this legislation\nprevents a massive tax hike across the board and overwhelmingly\nbenefits middle-class households and job creators.\n  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this bill provides more\nthan $600 billion--that is $600 billion more--of new tax relief for\nhard-working Americans. How does it do that? There is $73 billion in\ninflation tax relief targeted at income brackets below $100,000 per\nyear; $205 billion in tax relief to the 90 percent of taxpayers who\nclaim the standard deduction; $93 billion in additional tax relief for\nseniors through a $6,000 bonus exemption; $124 billion in investment in\nchildren of low- and middle-income families, in addition to the\npermanent, doubled child tax credits. I am going to say that again: the\npermanent, doubled child tax credit.\n\n  The significant tax relief we are providing to hard-working families\nincludes: permanent lower tax rates, letting Americans keep more of\ntheir hard-earned money; permanent increased and enhanced standard\ndeduction, claimed by over 90 percent of taxpayers.\n  On top of making that doubled child tax credit permanent, we are also\nincreasing it for tens of millions of families.\n  There is tax relief for seniors in the form of a $6,000 bonus\nexemption for low- and middle-income seniors, slashing their tax\nburden; no tax on tips for millions of tipped workers, like waitresses,\nbarbers, hairstylists, and taxi drivers; no tax on overtime for\nmillions of America's hourly workers who work overtime and keep America\nrunning; no tax on auto loan interest for new cars made in the United\nStates, allowing the hard-working families of America to fully deduct\nauto loan interest on American-made cars; enhanced 529 education\nsavings accounts, making education expenses more affordable and\naccessible for families; new Trump savings accounts for newborns and\nchildren set up, up to the age of 18, building financial security for\nthe next generation.\n  We make childcare more accessible and affordable for working families\nby enhancing the child and dependent care credit and the dependent care\nassistance program.\n  The list goes on and on.\n  We extend the paid family and medical leave credit and expand health\nsavings accounts for healthcare expenses.\n  We repeal onerous IRS reporting requirements on gig workers, reduce\nthe paperwork burden for small businesses, and much more.\n  And all of this is just on the individual side of the code.\n  The business side of the Tax Code has the potential to generate\nphenomenal economic growth. When my Republican colleagues and I began\ntalking about how to best extend and enhance the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,\nwe agreed that one of our top priorities was to make it permanent--the\nreforms we made in 2017--including lower rates for corporations and\nsmall business owners, along with the international tax reforms,\nincreased domestic investment, boosted economic growth, and increased\ntake-home pay.\n  A growing economy powered a strong labor market. Workers saw record\nwage growth, and the unemployment rate fell dramatically to the lowest\nin 50 years, at 3.5 percent.\n  Corporate inversions, which we used to debate and debate endlessly--\nor businesses leaving America--became a thing of the past. They\nliterally ended, and America became the place to do business again.\nCapital formation exploded in the United States.\n  Restoring these critical business provisions and making them\npermanent is a key to driving additional growth and investment in the\nUnited States.\n  For businesses that spur investment and economic activity across the\ncountry, this bill makes the 20 percent small business deduction\npermanent, enabling job creation and spurring local economic activity.\n  It restores and makes permanent full expensing for domestic research\nand development, encouraging domestic innovation; restores and makes\npermanent full expensing for new capital investments, like machinery\nand equipment, boosting domestic production; restores and makes\npermanent interest deductibility, helping to finance critical domestic\ninvestments and keeping America globally competitive.\n  It includes full expensing for new factories and factory improvements\nto accelerate domestic manufacturing; permanently renews and enhances\nthe Opportunity Zone Program, driving a hundred-plus billion dollars of\ninvestment to rural and distressed communities.\n  According to the Tax Foundation, ``permanence for the [bill's] four\ncost recovery provisions,'' which I have just reviewed, ``would more\nthan double the long-run economic effect.''\n  The National Association of Manufacturers predicts that $248 billion\nin economic growth will come from the manufacturing sector alone, along\nwith over 1 million jobs and over $100 billion in new wages.\n  The National Federation of Independent Business says that making the\nsmall-business deduction permanent will create 1.2 million jobs over 10\nyears, growing to 2.4 million jobs in the long run. That growth also\nmeans more Federal revenue created right along the way.\n  And the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that the tax\nlegislation alone--this tax legislation alone--will drive more than $2\ntrillion in offsetting\n\n[[Page S3620]]\n\ndeficit reduction, thanks to permanent provisions that power economic\ngrowth and incentivize investment. Over a 10-year window, with this\nlegislation in effect, the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that\ndebt as a share of GDP will fall to 94 percent, compared to 117 percent\nif the Trump tax cuts expire.\n  And this chart is important to look at. This is what happens to our\ndeficit if we pass this tax legislation and grow our economy.\n  And this is what happens if we don't. The red line is what happens if\nwe don't.\n  Over a 10-year window, with this legislation in effect, as this chart\nshows, the estimate is 94 percent compared to 117 percent if the Trump\ntax cuts expire.\n  So while my colleagues on the other side complain and complain that\nwe will not let taxes go up, this is what will happen if they do go up.\n  Far from adding to the deficit, this legislation will finally put us\non a sound financial footing as we power growth and curb spending.\n  For those who claim that this bill will add over 4 trillion to the\ndeficit, it bears repeating: Preventing a $4 trillion tax hike is not\nthe same as deficit spending.\n  And for those who say that we should let a $4 trillion tax hike go\ninto effect to pay down the national debt, every tax increase that\nCongress has adopted, for as long as I can remember, was not used to\npay down the national debt. It was used to increase spending, and that\nis exactly what is going to happen if the Democrats have their way and\nforce this tax hike to happen. It was used by Congress to spend more\nmoney, not to reduce debt.\n  Extending current tax policy means that tax revenue as a percent of\nGDP will remain relatively unchanged. We do not have a revenue problem\nin America. We have a spending problem. That is why we asked JCT to\nscore this legislation under a more realistic scenario, using a current\npolicy baseline.\n  The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that making the Trump tax\ncuts permanent, combined with other Trump administration pro-growth\npolicies like regulatory reform and so forth, will increase Federal\nrevenues by more than $4 trillion, far more than offsetting any deficit\nestimates.\n\n  When combined with the $1.6 trillion in spending reductions, this\nbill represents historic savings for taxpayers, far exceeding the\nspending reductions in the past by hundreds of billions of dollars.\n  And I want to look at this chart. I have talked a lot about tax cuts\nand protecting against tax increases, and the economic growth that\nhappens from that. But reducing spending is another critical priority\nthat we must address, and in addition to the pro-growth tax policy that\nI have just described, we cut spending by $1.6 trillion.\n  This chart shows how other bills have tried to take a shot at\nreducing spending in the past. We far exceed any spending reduction\nbill that Congress has ever passed. We are paying attention to the\nrevenue side, and we are paying attention to the spending side.\n  To achieve this record level of savings, we are slashing President\nBiden's Green New Deal spending and promoting an ``America First''\nenergy policy. We are eliminating hundreds of billions of dollars of\nthe Green New Deal subsidies, including ending wasteful credits like\nthe EV tax credit. We stop penalizing fossil fuels in favor of\nunreliable and expensive green energy, and instead support consistent\nenergy sources, making energy affordable again.\n  We are also rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal spending\nprograms, as my colleague from South Carolina mentioned, like those\nthat we have identified in Medicaid. This will not reduce benefits for\nthose who are qualified and for whom Medicaid was intended. It will\nreduce waste, fraud, and abusive scams that are being used to get the\nAmerican taxpayer to funnel money into States or into other programs.\n  This program was created to help pregnant women, children, and\nseniors in America and those with disabilities. We are continuing to\nprotect them. They will not lose benefits. And the politics of fear\nthat you hear constantly are simply false.\n  But in recent years, the Democrats have incentivized Medicaid to\nenroll healthy Americans and illegal immigrants, driving up costs for\ntaxpayers and risking the program's sustainability for those who need\nit the most.\n  This is what has happened. This is what is happening to the\nenrollment and the spending in Medicaid.\n  The fate of this expansion is an unsustainable path and puts the\nfuture of the program at risk, including the U.S. Federal debt.\n  As spending has surged, so have inappropriate payments and ineligible\nenrollments, along with gimmicks and loopholes.\n  People are alarmed by these statistics, but official reports indicate\nthat the Federal Government made $543 billion in inappropriate Medicaid\npayments from 2015 through 2024. Some experts think that that number is\ncloser to $1 trillion.\n  That is what we are addressing in this legislation. We have the\nresponsibility to ensure that programs like Medicaid work efficiently\nand effectively and remain financially viable for those whom it was\ndesigned to help.\n  For months, my Democrat colleagues have engaged in the politics of\nfear, warning that Republicans are going to rip this critical program\nfrom those most in need. Let me be clear: This legislation does not\ntake Medicaid away from any recipients whom the program was designed to\nhelp. Children, the elderly, the disabled or infirm, adults caring for\nchildren, and elderly relatives are protected by this bill. We would\nnot be honoring our obligation to these recipients if we allow the\nprogram to continue to balloon, forcing vulnerable populations to\ncompete for available resources with able-bodied adults who refuse to\nwork.\n  One father recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:\n\n       Medicaid was created to help people like my son. He is 17,\n     has severe autism and epilepsy and needs constant attention.\n     Yet thanks to Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, he is stuck on\n     a multiyear waiting list for in-home care because able-bodied\n     adults are competing for the same resources.\n\n  CBO estimates that over 1.4 million illegal aliens are receiving\nMedicaid benefits. I am talking about those who are not U.S. citizens\nand are not legally in the United States, receiving Medicaid benefits\nand pushing those like this man's 17-year-old son out of his\nopportunity to get access to those benefits.\n  Brett Guthrie, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee in\nthe House, correctly notes:\n\n       Every dollar misspent on illegal immigrants and ineligible\n     individuals in the Medicaid program means less money going to\n     our children, our pregnant women and mothers, individuals\n     [and others] who are disabled, and seniors.\n\n  Republicans are committed to preserving and strengthening Medicaid\nfor the people Medicaid was intended to serve. That starts with making\ncommonsense reforms to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the\nprogram.\n  This bill targets rampant fraud in the program by removing illegal\naliens, deceased recipients, or those enrolled in multiple States. It\neliminates wasteful spending by ensuring that Medicaid payments align\nwith levels in Medicare and other spending programs and increases the\nfrequency of eligibility checks. It requires more personal\naccountability and promotes pathways to work for able-bodied adults.\n  The work requirements proposed in this legislation are simple. Many\npeople are amazed that they are so easy to meet and yet so rigorously\nopposed. If you are an able-bodied adult without dependents, you can\nqualify for taxpayer-funded Medicaid by spending 20 hours per week\nworking or participating in work training or going to school or\nparticipating in community service or volunteer work.\n  The majority of Americans agree that these rules are responsible\nguardrails to protect a program that was designed to protect America's\nmost vulnerable Americans.\n  The bill also corrects abusive practices by freezing and reducing\nprovider taxes, a financial gimmick used by States to increase Federal\nspending that they receive.\n  For those concerned about funding for rural hospitals, during the\ntransition back to responsible funding levels, the legislation creates\na bridge funding system to help stabilize rural hospitals and enhance\nthat long-term financial solvency.\n\n[[Page S3621]]\n\n  And while Democrats claim Republicans are slashing Medicaid spending,\nthe reality is that even with these reforms, Medicaid spending is\nprojected to continue to grow by billions of dollars over the next 10\nyears. Only in Washington is a smaller increase in spending considered\na cut. In reality, these reforms will improve, protect, and preserve\nMedicaid for the most vulnerable Americans.\n  We have had a very robust debate over how to best deliver on\nPresident Trump's agenda, and I am proud of what we achieved in this\nlegislation. The tax provisions in our bill--from the permanent\nextension of the lower tax rate to the increased child tax credit, to\nthe permanent tax relief for businesses--will deliver financial\nsecurity for American families and grow our economy. The healthcare\nprovisions will protect and preserve Medicaid for the Americans that\nthe program was designed to serve.\n  And while more work remains, this bill's economic growth, combined\nwith deficit reduction that we have in it, finally puts our country on\na much better fiscal trajectory.\n  Speaking of work, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to\nthank the excellent staff from the Joint Committee on Taxation, the\nCongressional Budget Office, and the Senate legislative counsel for the\nhard work and countless hours they have put in to get us to this point.\nSome of them have been working with us on these provisions for years,\nand we greatly appreciate your partnership in this effort.\n  I ask unanimous consent to have these individuals' names printed in\nthe Record.\n  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in\nthe Record, as follows:\n\n                       Joint Committee on Taxation\n\n       Thomas Barthold--Chief of Staff, Chris Giosa--Deputy Chief\n     of Staff, Emily Acker, Lillian Aston, Azeka Abramoff,\n     Jennifer Blouin, Nick Bull, Tanya Butler, Chia Chang, James\n     Cilke, Angel Clarke, Matthew Comey, Taylor Cranor, Elena\n     Derby, Clare Diefenbach, Connor Dowd, Tim Dowd, James Elwell,\n     Brian Gallagher, William Gorman, Adam Gropper.\n       Sylvester Gunn, Sameh Habib, Jason Hayman, Mark R. High,\n     Caitlin Hird, Nicholas Hoffman, Deirdre James, Damion\n     Jedlicka, Sally Kwak, Andrew Lai, Paul Landefeld, Joseph\n     LeCates, Jeremy Lent, David Lenter, Martin Lopez-Daneri, Bert\n     Lue, Kathleen Mackie, Jamie McGuire, Debra McMullen, Rhonda\n     Migdail, Katie Mikulka, Sanjay Misra.\n       Rachel Moore, Sidney Moorer, Jake Mortenson, Matt Muma,\n     Merrick Munday, Jonathan F. Newton, Dennis Ortega,\n     Christopher J. Overend, Brandon Pecoraro, Zachary W.\n     Richards, Cecily W. Rock, Taylor Rose, Kristine Roth, Natalie\n     Rudman, Chris Simmons, David Splinter, Sarah Trebicka, H.\n     Brenton Trigg, Tracy Watkins, Tommy Willingham, Lin Xu.\n\n                   Congressional Budget Office Staff\n\n       Chad Chirico, Lara Robillard, Sarah Sajewski, Hudson\n     Osgood, Austin Barselau, Robert Stewart, Carolyn Ugolino, Amy\n     Zettle, Aaron Pervin, Emily Vreeland, Jessica Hale, Cyrus\n     Elkland, Ryan Greenfield, Ezra Cohn, Allison Percy, Ben\n     Hopkins, Caroline Hanson, Claire Hou, Eamon Molloy, Nianyi\n     Hong, Sean Lyons, Towo Babayemi, Rajan Topiwala, Noelia\n     Duchovny.\n\n                    Senate Legislative Counsel Staff\n\n       Ruth Ernst, Kelly Malone Thornburg, John Goetcheus, Davis\n     Riley, Bill Baird, Allison Otto, Mark McGunagle, Vince\n     Gaiani, Jim Fransen.\n  Mr. CRAPO. I also have to thank my incredible staff who have foregone\nsleep over the past several months to provide timely, indispensable\ninsight, facts, legislative text, counsel, and so much more. Without\nthem, we would not be at this point and ready to deliver this much\nneeded growth-focused policy for the American people.\n  I ask unanimous consent to have the names of my entire Finance\nCommittee staff printed in the Record.\n  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in\nthe Record, as follows:\n\n                 Senator Crapo Finance Committee Staff\n\n       Amanda Critchfield Blum, Communications Director; Gable\n     Brady, Senior Health Policy Advisor; Brian Bombassaro,\n     International Trade Counsel; Becky Cole, Chief Economist;\n     Courtney Connell, Chief Tax Counsel; Jamie Cummins, Senior\n     Tax Counsel; Andrew Dell'Orto, Policy Advisor; Erin Dempsey,\n     Deputy Health Policy Director; Eric Fejer, Deputy Press\n     Secretary; Michael Gould, Tax Counsel; Randy Herndon, Deputy\n     Chief Tax Counsel; Jared Hermann; John Kashuba, Counsel;\n     Phoebe Keller, Communications Advisor; Kate Lindsey, Tax\n     Policy Advisor; Clancy Lyles, Professional Staff Member;\n     Kellie McConnell, Health Policy Director; Amy Nabozny, Health\n     Policy Advisor; Molly Newell, International Trade Counsel;\n     John O'Hara, Trade Policy Director and Counsel; Eric Oman,\n     Senior Tax Policy Advisor; Mayur Patel, Chief International\n     Trade Counsel; Gregg Richard, Staff Director; Charlotte Rock,\n     Health Policy Advisor; Lara Rosner, Social Security Policy\n     Advisor; Don Snyder, Senior Tax and Oversight Counsel; James\n     Williams, Tax and Economic Policy Advisor; Staci Lancaster,\n     Staff Writer.\n  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, even with all that and all that we\naccomplish in this legislation, there are dozens of additional good\nideas, smart policies, and commonsense reforms that we were not able to\ninclude today. I commit to working with my colleagues to advance those\ngoals as well as we move forward. But today's historic legislation is\nmore than a good start and will pay dividends for American families.\n  Extending good tax policy, delivering targeted relief, and reining in\nwasteful spending, as achieved in this bill, is the best way to restore\neconomic prosperity and opportunity for all Americans. I look forward\nto getting it to the President's desk as soon as possible.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Democratic whip.\n  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are here today debating a clumsily\nassembled package--still a work in progress--that would rip away\nhealthcare from 16 million American families, give tax breaks to\nmillionaires, billionaires, and the largest corporations.\n  Think about that for a moment.\n  Republicans have decided that the best avenue to generate revenue\nthat they can then give in tax breaks to wealthy people is to eliminate\nhealth insurance coverage for 16 million Americans. That is going to\nhave a dramatic impact on their lives. If you have ever been a young\nfather with a baby with a serious medical problem, and you had no\nhealth insurance, you will never forget it as long as you live. I know;\nI have been there.\n  The notion of losing your health insurance leaves you as vulnerable\nas possible in some of the most important moments of your life. The day\nwe consider this provision to eliminate health insurance coverage for\n16 million families is unimaginable and cruel.\n  Let's not act like there is a unified Republican front on this issue.\nEven some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to\nbe here at this moment, jamming this unpopular bill through this\nChamber under arbitrary deadlines.\n  One of my colleagues took a look at tax breaks. You will hear them\nsay over and over again: If we don't act, the average family has to pay\nmore in taxes. There is a way around that. If we limit any tax breaks\nin this bill in this effort to people making $400,000 a year or less--\n$400,000 a year or less--it virtually eliminates two-thirds of the cost\nof this undertaking, and it means you don't have to take away the\nhealth insurance of 16 million families. So there are ways to do tax\nbreaks which make sense.\n  Count this Democrat in with the Republicans for helping working\nfamilies who are struggling to get by, and a lot of them are living\npaycheck to paycheck. The notion that we would say to them: We are\ngoing to take away your health insurance; we are going to raise the\ncost of health insurance for you, that is no answer to their problems.\n  Behind closed doors, my Republican colleagues continue to be consumed\nwith infighting, bickering over the bill's substance, and for good\nreason.\n  We have a process here which is almost impossible to explain to an\nordinary person of how we reach reconciliation. The Parliamentarian's\noffice--she is sitting here--and God bless you for what you have been\nthrough the last several months and all your staff--have to make\ndecisions on a daily basis, over and over again, as to whether or not\nprovisions in this bill are eligible under the law that governs the\nU.S. Senate.\n  We are in the process of debating this on the Senate floor. I see our\nranking member on the Budget Committee--the Senate Budget Committee--\nthe Senator from Oregon. We are in the process of still appealing to\nthe Parliamentarian's office on provisions in the bill. This is truly a\nwork in progress.\n\n  I think what they do know is troubling, and it should be. This bill\nwould be a disaster for hospitals. The Senate Republican bill,\nunfortunately, is going to endanger hospitals all over the United\nStates. But if you happen to live in a small town, rural area--and I\n\n[[Page S3622]]\n\nrepresent a lot of them in the State of Illinois--you are the most\nvulnerable. You are the target. When they cut back on Medicaid\nPrograms, these are the hospitals that will close their doors.\n  What is the impact of a hospital closing its door in a downstate\ncommunity in Illinois? Devastating. Hospitals are not only the center\nfor emergency medical care, good doctors, nurses, and such, they are\nalso a major economic force in smalltown America. Take away a hospital\nand then try to attract a new business to your community--good luck.\n  This Senate bill cripples one of the main ways the States fund their\nMedicaid Programs and keep hospitals afloat, especially rural and low-\nincome areas. It is called the provider tax. Earlier this week, a\nRepublican Senator--a Republican Senator--circulated a flyer to his\nfellow caucus Members so they are all on notice detailing just how much\neach State will lose in Medicaid provider tax funding under the\nproposal.\n  Let's take a look at my neck of the woods, the Midwest. Iowa would\nlose $4.1 billion; Missouri, $6.1 billion; Kentucky, $12 million;\nLouisiana would lose $20 billion; North Carolina, $38.9 billion.\n  Senator Tillis and I were in a conversation yesterday, and he used\nthat very same figure. His analysis says if we go forward with this\nbill, it cuts Medicaid reimbursement in his home State of North\nCarolina by a whopping $38.9 billion.\n  This list of States and what they will lose was passed around by a\nRepublican Senator to his own caucus. They know what they are up\nagainst here. If Republicans have their way and pass this bill,\nhospitals will be forced to shrink or eliminate services. In Decatur,\nIL, one of the hospitals facing a crunch time had to make a decision\nwhether to keep their doors open. They did, but they eliminated OB-GYN\ndelivering babies and all mental health and addiction counseling--two\ncritical areas for the hospitals.\n  So this bill will force hospitals to shrink or eliminate services.\nDoctors and nurses will leave and, in some cases, the hospital will\nclose. Imagine in a rural area or remote area, an extra 45 minutes, an\nextra hour in the car with somebody in the front seat you love very\nmuch who is in a desperate situation. As it stands today, half of the\nrural hospitals around the country already operate in the danger zone,\nand it is the same thing for children's hospitals. If you have one in\nyour community you use--I do. These children's hospitals have warned us\nthey can't keep their doors open if Medicaid is cut as dramatically as\nthe Republicans want to cut it.\n  If Republicans have their way, we are going to see massive layoffs,\nfewer nurses, technicians, and doctors, along with decreasing quality\nof care.\n  The American Hospital Association has estimated how these cuts to\nMedicaid could impact not just jobs in red State hospitals but across\nthe entire economy. Here is what they found. If the Republican\nprovision goes through that cuts Medicaid reimbursement in order to\nprovide tax breaks for wealthy people--Maine is an example of one\nState. They would lose 5,000 jobs; Kansas, 6,200 jobs; Iowa, 11,000\njobs; Missouri, 26,600 jobs. I have talked to the administrator of BJC\nin St. Louis, MO. The reason is, it is not just a Missouri hospital.\nThey have facilities on the Illinois side of the river. In fact, one-\nthird of their patients are from Illinois, and one-third of their\npatients, overall, use Medicaid to run their hospital. He has told me\nwhat is going to happen if the Republican measure goes through and\ncutbacks to these hospitals.\n  They came up with, incidentally, the rescue fund to solve the\npolitical problem. I want to check and make sure Senator Murray can\nback me up on this. Our overall cut in Medicaid now is about $1\ntrillion?\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Correct.\n  Mr. DURBIN. One trillion dollars, imagine. This is Washington we are\ntalking: cutting Medicaid nationwide $1 trillion and the rescue plan\nfor the small hospitals that are in danger--the ones that I talked\nabout--$1 trillion cut. How big is the rescue plan? It is $25 billion.\nDo the math. It is a joke. It is a joke.\n  If Republican leaders think this is an adequate amount to alleviate\npain, all of our Nation, through our hospitals, are going to feel like\nthat is trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose. This simply\nwon't work.\n  I want to conclude by saying this. We passed the Affordable Care Act\n15 years ago. Of all the things that I worked on in Congress, I think\nit had more positive impact to help the families across America than\nanything. We found a way to make health insurance more affordable for\nfamilies 15 years ago. And to do it, we held hearings, 100 hearings on\nthe Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare is what they called it--roundtables,\nwalk-throughs. Two committees spent a combined 21 days holding markups\nso everyone could offer an amendment.\n  Do you know how many amendments were made to the ObamaCare program?\nFour hundred. There were 400 votes in committee and on the floor on\namendments. One hundred forty-seven Republican amendments were\nincluded, though not a single Republican Senator ended up supporting\nObamaCare when it was all over.\n  What do we have here with this measure, at the end of the day? That\nlegislation, ObamaCare, allowed more than 40 million Americans to gain\nhealth insurance. Today, how many hearings have we had on the bill that\nis before us, this dramatic multitrillion-dollar bill? None. Zero. Not\na single one. There are zero markups for Senators offering amendments.\nThere were 400 amendments on ObamaCare--none on this one until it has\ncome to the floor today with zero bipartisan input.\n\n  Our friends on the Republican side have said, basically, it is a big\ndeal. Take it or leave it.\n  Should this bill become law, do you know what we will have done?\nThrown 16 million Americans off health insurance and closed many\nvulnerable small hospitals--all to pay for tax breaks for millionaires\nand billionaires. Maybe some of my Republican friends are OK with that.\nI don't think the American people are.\n  I am hoping that sanity and commonsense prevail. We need four. We\nneed four Senators to step up and say: Stop this train. We have got to\nsit down and do our homework. We cannot expose the American families\nand the American economy and do this in the name of preserving tax\nbreaks for the wealthiest people. Elon Musk seems to be doing OK in\nlife, right? He is the wealthiest man in the world. Do you know what\nthe tax break will be for Elon Musk on the bill that is before us on\nthe floor? It will be $346,000--a lot of money. To him, he won't even\nnotice it. They are giving him a tax break he won't notice and taking\naway health insurance from families who will be devastated--16 million\naround the country. It is an important choice, and we should make the\nright one.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.\n  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in deciding whether to vote for the ``Big,\nNot So Beautiful Bill,'' I have asked a very specific question: Will\nthe deficit be more or less next year? The answer, without question,\nis: This bill will grow the deficit. The Federal Government has fancy\nformulas and hundreds of wonky accountants who inform us of their\nprojections over 10 years, but you often can't trust these projections.\n  In an excellent piece written by the Foundation for Economic\nEducation, entitled ``The CBO's Projections Are Worse Than Useless,''\nEric Schuler writes:\n\n       Long-term analysis and language is commonplace in U.S.\n     national politics, but it achieves no useful outcome. It\n     confuses far more than it clarifies. It does not provide\n     accurate estimates of long-term results. It does not improve\n     the average voter's understanding of policy effects. And it\n     gives politicians a means to claim they are being fiscally\n     responsible without actually exercising any prudence\n     whatsoever.\n\n  Sometimes the predictions are off because a new Congress is elected\nand changes the law. Eric Schuler writes that, for any projection of a\n10-year budget to be accurate, the Congressional Budget Office ``has to\nassume the law won't change for ten years, even as most of the\npoliticians that make the laws risk being replaced [every] two years--\nand all of them advocate for changes of one stripe or another . . .''\n  Schuler states what few in Washington will admit:\n\n       Congress has a knack for starting any proposed cuts in the\n     later years, while letting spending run wild in the immediate\n     future.\n\n[[Page S3623]]\n\n  Sometimes these predictions are off by $1 trillion or so because the\neconomy grew more slowly or more quickly than anticipated.\n  Bruce Thompson, a former Senate aide and Assistant Secretary of the\nTreasury writes that the Congressional Budget Office ``miscalculated\nthe deficit [last year] by $1 trillion.''\n  So in deciding whether to vote for any big, monstrous bill, it helps\nto ask the right question. To me, the most pertinent question is, How\nwill the bill affect the deficit in the next year?\n  Currently, our deficit is estimated to be a little under $2 trillion\nthis year. What will happen to the debt in 2026 if this bill passes?\n  Well, in using the math most favorable to the supporters of the bill,\nreferred to as a policy baseline, the deficit in 2026 will still be\n$270 billion more than this year. So even using the math, even using\nthe formulas that the supporters of the bill like, the deficit will\ngrow by $270 billion next year. That is just not good if you profess to\nbe fiscally conservative.\n  Why will the deficit grow next year? Well, even if you argue that the\n2017 tax cuts don't need to be counted in the calculation at all, the\nnew tax cuts add up to $234 billion to the debt next year.\n  In addition, the ``Big, Not So Beautiful Bill'' adds new spending of\nover $500 billion--military, border, agricultural subsidies, et cetera.\nThat spending is front-loaded and will be spent in the first 4 years of\nthe 10-year window.\n  Legislative spending is one of the few items in the bill that is\nexact. It isn't estimated. If they say they will spend $500 billion,\nthey are going to spend $500 billion in all of the first few years. So,\nin order not to add to the deficit, the ``BBB,'' the ``Big, Not So\nBeautiful Bill,'' has to have corresponding spending cuts to counter\nall the new spending. Unfortunately, the spending cuts are back-loaded\nto the final 5 years of the 10-year window when several tax cuts expire\nand the spending increases are finished.\n  In addition, elections occur every 2 years and could easily wipe out\nany perceived savings that might occur in the later years.\n  The only real certainty in this budget drama are the budget years\ncoming in the immediate future. It is the next year or two that are the\nonly things that are actually of any certainty. So, if we analyze this\nbill from that perspective, we discover that the bill increases the\ndebt by $500 billion in the first 5 years. This is not the CBO's\nprojection that Republicans have not liked. This is the projection they\nare using that says the debt will add $500 billion in the first 5\nyears. They say, somehow, miraculously, in the last 5 years, it gets to\n$500 billion in savings. So it is a $1 trillion shift from year 5 to\nyear 10. The CBO scores it differently, not as encouragingly, and says\nit adds over $3 trillion in debt.\n  So which is it? Does this bill save $500 billion over 10, or does it\nadd $3 trillion over 10?\n  The truth is, even for a person with a magic crystal ball, it is\nanybody's guess, which brings us back to, maybe we have to judge the\neffects of the ``Big, Not So Beautiful Bill'' by looking at what\nhappens to the debt next year.\n  Supporters of the bill admit it adds $270 billion to the debt next\nyear. That is the only thing we know for certain. We don't know what\nwill happen in year 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, or 10; but we know that next year,\nthis bill will grow the deficit by $270 billion.\n  In addition, the bill increases the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. What\ndoes that mean? That is an admission that they know they aren't\ncontrolling the deficit; that they know the ensuing years will add\ntrillions more. So we are adding $2 trillion this year, but they are\nanticipating--the authors of the bill are anticipating--adding more\nthan $2 trillion next year.\n  That doesn't sound at all conservative to me, and that is why I am a\nno.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, joining me on the floor are experts in\nthe budget process, who are former chairs and ranking members: Senator\nMurray, who was the Senate Budget chair from 2013 through 2015; Senator\nWhitehouse, who was the Senate Budget chair from 2023 through 2025; and\nSenator Van Hollen, who was the ranking Democrat on the House Budget\nCommittee from 2011 through 2017.\n  We are here to address a fundamental violation of the law--of section\n313--the Senate rules for reconciliation.\n  To try to summarize this in the simplest words possible, 100 Senators\nvoted to have a special fast-track, filibuster-free pathway solely for\nreducing the debt. The first principle was that no deficits could be\ncreated in a 10-year period. Our Republican colleagues blew that up in\n1996 when they wanted to do a tax bill that would create massive\ndeficits. Then a second pillar was no deficits in any title of the bill\nin any year after the first 10 years. This bill, right now, if this\npasses, blows that up. The third was to use honest numbers,\nCongressional Budget Office numbers.\n  I have a letter here from the Congressional Budget Office, and they\nsay that the estimate is relative to the CBO's January 2025 baseline.\nThe CBO is required to construct its baseline under the assumption\nspecified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act and\nthe Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.\n  In response to your questions about the cost of title VII, the\nquestion was, Would title VII increase the deficit by more than the\n$1.5 trillion over the 2025 through 2034 period? The answer is, yes,\nthe CBO estimates that its enacting would increase the deficit by\nnearly $3.5 trillion over the 2025-2034 period--$3.5 trillion.\n  We then asked, Would it increase deficits in the years beyond 2034,\nbeyond the 10-year window? The answer was yes.\n  But if you were to ask my Republican friends, they would say: No, no,\nno. We are inventing a new theory, and that is that anything that the\n2017 tax giveaway to the billionaires put into law that expired after\n10 years, we are just going to assume it would have continued, and,\ntherefore, our continuing it doesn't cost anything.\n  That is a pretty crazy notion that if they didn't put it into the\nbill, the law says it ends, but they say: No, no. It would have\ncontinued anyway through some magical way; so, therefore, a tax break\nfor the really wealthy costs nothing.\n  This is exactly--exactly--the type of lying to ourselves, smoke and\nmirrors that 100 Senators agreed to end back in 1974; and that piece of\nit has continued in place for 51 years until this moment, in this\nSenate, by this Republican majority, who says we are going to start\nlying to ourselves and lying to the American people about what this\nbill costs.\n  Well, we are not going to lie. We are going to tell you the truth.\nThis bill costs well over $3 trillion over 10 years and some $30\ntrillion-plus on top of existing deficits and debt because of the\nprovisions that are in this particular bill.\n  Our current national debt that has been run up since the Declaration\nof Independence is around $36.5 trillion. This bill basically matches\nthat in creating that much additional debt over the next 30 years. This\nis a huge assault on the programs that we have sustained as a nation\nfor the people of America and for people struggling to get on their\nfeet. So we want affordable housing programs. We want to have fair and\nquality healthcare. We want to have an education system that gives\nevery child an opportunity to thrive. We want to create a robust\neconomy through investments so there are good jobs, because no\ngovernment program is better than a good job. All of those are\nimperiled by this bill because the Republican leadership is lying to\nthe American people and lying to themselves. So we are here to tell the\ntruth.\n  First of all, we are going to turn to Senator Murray who, as I\nmentioned, was the Senate Budget chair from 2013 to 2015.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon and our\nother Budget chairs and ranking members from previous years because\nthis is really important.\n  There are some things you can't change with legislation despite what\nmy colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to believe. For\nexample, one plus one is two, and while a trillion might have a lot of\nzeroes in it, it is, in fact, a much, much bigger number. Now, that\nmight sound obvious, but, apparently, my colleagues across the aisle\nneed a little reminder because,\n\n[[Page S3624]]\n\nright now, Republicans are pretending not to get it. It is almost\nbeyond belief, and it is certainly beyond common sense.\n  After years of complaining about the debt--in fact, at the same time\nthey are talking about how we need to address the debt--Republicans now\nare suddenly pretending they don't know how to count. Republicans are\nsuddenly pretending the Parliamentarian doesn't exist if they don't\ntalk to her. Republicans are suddenly pretending that precedent doesn't\nexist if they just fake amnesia and that norms and consequences for\nbreaking them will just disappear if they wish them away really hard.\nMy preschool students had more common sense.\n  Republicans should know, if they replace math with magic, if they\ntear up the Senate process, if they blow off the Senate\nParliamentarian, that bill will come due--and not just the bill for $4\ntrillion blown on tax cuts for billionaires and corporations. The bill\nwill also come due for trashing this Senate process and precedent when\nRepublicans are no longer in the majority.\n  If Republicans are serious about plowing forward with rewriting or\nignoring Senate procedure and the laws of mathematics, I would just\nask: Spare me the empty excuses. Spare me the explanations that totally\nignore the reality of what you are doing. I mean, do they really think\nit washes away everything to say: Oh, it is fine to break the process\nin half because we say it is fine; oh, it is fine; we have the\nauthority to ignore math? Give me a break.\n  To every Republican who really thinks this is a convincing argument\nand to anyone who thinks ``we can'' is just acceptable rationale for\ngoing nuclear and pretending the most expensive bill in the history of\nour country can be paid for by some magic-bean counting, here is my\nchallenge to you: Go back home and try that game with your\nconstituents. Tell them it is OK. Yes, the debt is going to be $4\ntrillion and higher 10 years from now. That is true, but it is fine. We\nvoted on it, and we get to say a trillion is actually zero. Go ahead.\nSee how that works for you. And you may as well tell them you are\nvoting against gravity next because that is just as reasonable.\n\n  And don't forget: When you tell your families back home that\ntrillions of dollars in tax cuts for billionaires and companies are\nfree because you waved a wand or you said some magic words, don't\nforget to tell them those are just tax cuts for the billionaires, not\nfor working families.\n  Don't forget to tell the folks back home: Yeah, I voted to say a\ntrillion dollars is nothing, but we still need to kick people off of\ntheir healthcare. That is just too expensive. We still need to close\nthose hospitals. We have to cut costs. And we still have to kick people\noff SNAP because the debt is out of control.\n  Don't forget to mention: No, we can't afford childcare. We can't\nafford paid family leave. We can't afford to solve your problems.\n  Magic math is apparently just for billionaires. You all are getting\nless.\n  Please, Republicans, send that message to your constituents. Just see\nhow it goes over because you can fool yourself, but you are not going\nto fool the American people. They don't get to balance their budget\nwith magic math. They don't get to pretend $1 trillion is nothing. And\nthey don't get to pretend that this bill is free because at the end of\nthe day, regardless of what policy baseline you all want to use in DC,\nthose families back home are the ones who will be paying the actual\ncost.\n  I yield to Senator Merkley.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Would the Senator yield for a question?\n  Mrs. MURRAY. I would.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. In the time that you were Budget chair, did you ever\ncontemplate a situation in which you argued that renewing a tax break\nthat was by law expiring would somehow have no impact on the deficit?\n  Mrs. MURRAY. To my friend from Oregon, I never would have\ncontemplated it, and I never would have put it forward. I happen to\nknow that if I would have suggested that, my Republican colleagues\nwould have been all over me, telling me that breaks the rules.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you. Thank you very much.\n  Returning to Senator Whitehouse, who was Senate Budget chair from\n2023 to 2025.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Merkley.\n  I mentioned earlier the history of the section that the Republican\nBudget chairman is using to perform this multitrillion-dollar magical\nact of making huge, deficit-busting numbers disappear. It is called\nsection 312. It has been used before, but it has always been minor,\ncorrective, and bipartisan.\n  I mentioned earlier the adjustment that was made on a bipartisan\nbasis to the Power Marketing Administration's numbers to return the CBO\nto an agreement that the Senate had previously made. That was not\nenormously consequential. This is almost certainly the first time you\nare hearing about it.\n  Again, in 2023, as Budget chair, with Republican Chair Jodey\nArrington on the House side, we made a $105 million adjustment to a\ndairy program. Today, we are talking about trillions. This was a $105\nmillion adjustment--again, bipartisan, minor, and corrective, fixing a\ntechnical issue on a bipartisan basis.\n  Last year, Speaker Johnson and Leader Schumer agreed to direct CBO to\nscore a feed program with an OMB estimate, and they used this rule\nagain--collaborating on a bipartisan basis on a matter that was minor\nand corrective.\n  Well, this is different. This is trillions, and Republicans are using\nthis rule to pretend that it is not.\n  There are a lot of ways to look at who is right. Time, obviously,\nwill tell, but this bill actually has a ``tell'' right in it. Page 754\nof this bill is the reality check on whether or not they are running up\nthe debt by trillions. We know they are running up the debt by\ntrillions because they say so in this bill.\n  You can play Senate procedural fakery, you can wave magic wands\naround numbers all day long, but someday soon, you hit reality, and you\nhit reality in the real world of markets and selling Treasury bonds and\nhaving a legal debt limit.\n  If this did not raise the debt by trillions, they would not need to\nraise the debt limit by trillions.\n  Here is the text:\n\n       Subtitle C--Increase in Debt Limit.\n       Sec. 72001. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.\n       The limitation section 3101(b) under title 31 . . . is\n     increased by $5,000,000,000,000.\n\n  They are dodging the Parliamentarian's ruling by letting the Budget\nchair make a trillion-dollar magic-wand maneuver because they know\npretty darn well what the Parliamentarian's ruling would be. And how do\nthey know what the Parliamentarian's ruling would be? Because the\nanswer is in their own damned bill.\n  I yield the floor.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Would the Senator from Rhode Island yield for a\nquestion?\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Of course.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. You mentioned the use of section 312, which gives some\nflexibility to resolve, as you put it, minor issues on a bipartisan\nbasis to correct an issue, a technical issue. In those cases you\nmentioned, were those on a reconciliation bill?\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Were they on a reconciliation bill? I don't believe\nthey were.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. No, they were not. In fact, that power has never been\nused on a reconciliation bill because the following section, 313, gives\nvery specific instructions. It says each provision must be costed out\nfor its impact on both outlays, the spending side, or revenue, should\nit be a revenue measure.\n  If you are saying ``Well, how do I do that?'' you say ``Well, if we\npass this provision, what will it cost as compared to not passing this\nprovision, not having it in the bill?'' That is a comparison to current\nlaw.\n  This ability of the Budget chair--and actually the law says the\nBudget Committee--to correct technical issues or narrow issues on a\nbipartisan basis basically solves snarly little budgeting questions,\nlike on the dairy program that you mentioned. It was never used on\nreconciliation, ever; never used on a broad basis, ever; never used to\ncreate a lie about what a bill costs in this fashion.\n  Now, we are turning to the Senator from Maryland, who was ranking\nDemocrat on the House Budget Committee for 6 years, so he brings a lot\nof experience and knowledge about the budget process.\n  Senator Van Hollen.\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and the ranking\n\n[[Page S3625]]\n\nmember of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Merkley.\n  I just want to start by reading a statement. This is a quote:\n\n       Anyone that says current policy baseline [is the right way\n     to go] is engaging in intellectual and economic fraud . . .\n     it's intellectually lazy. My basic mission in life is just to\n     try to create some honest math.\n\n  That wasn't from Senator Van Hollen or anyone on this floor; that is\nfrom a Republican Member of the House, Congressman Schweikert from\nArizona, talking about exactly the issue we are debating here in the\nU.S. Senate.\n  Let me read you another quote--a little more colorful--again about\nthis Republican accounting fraud:\n\n       This is fairy dust, and they're [just] full of crap. And\n     I'm gonna call them out on it.\n\n  That is Republican Congressman Chip Roy of Texas.\n  They are right. This is a fraud. This is a fraud that would make the\nEnron scammers blush.\n  I quote those House Members for a reason, because we can disagree\nwith what they did in their bill--and I strongly disagree with it--but\nat least they used honest math, and at least they used the math that is\nrequired by the rules here in the Senate, the honest math that\nRepublicans here in the Senate want to dodge because it will both tell\nthe American people just how big the deficits are but also because it\nwill screw up their whole entire plan.\n  Just so people listening have some sense of how these Senate numbers\nare designed to disguise the real impact of their deficits, look at,\nfor example, the basic individual tax rates in the House bill. When\nthey extended those tax rates from the Trump 2017 bill, it cost $2.2\ntrillion under what we call the current law baseline, which is the\nreality baseline because that is what it will cost when you understand\nthat they sunset at the end of this year, and that is what it will cost\nto renew them.\n  So under honest accounting, it is $2.2 trillion. Under the Senate\nfraudulent accounting, that $2.2 trillion deficit miraculously becomes\nan $83 billion deficit.\n  Let's look at the House permanent extension of key deductions for\nbusinesses. That would cost--honest accounting--$821 billion; under the\nSenate accounting scam, $6 billion.\n  So what we are seeing here is this blatant, deliberate effort to\nmislead the American people about the true costs of this bill, about\nthe deficit impacts of this bill, about how it will impact the debt.\n  We all know that when the debt goes up and we have to put more of our\ncosts on Uncle Sam's credit card, it puts upward pressure on interest\nrates. That means Americans will pay higher interest rates on their\nmortgages, on their car loans, and everything else.\n  So when you try to hide the deficit impact, you really are trying to\nfool the American people, and we are here to blow the whistle.\n  Now, I just want to show our colleagues something that was put\ntogether by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. If you look\nat the blue, you can see that for each year, starting this year--2025,\n2026--the blue is what Senate Republicans claim their bill will add to\nthe deficit. The red is how much more it will actually add to the\ndeficit.\n  So at the end of this 10-year period, what you see is that Senate\nRepublicans are claiming that their bill will add $441 billion, which\nis still a big number, but the real number, when you do honest\naccounting, when you add up all of these, is $4.2 trillion--a much\nbigger number.\n  I do want to point something out on this chart that I think everybody\nwatching should understand. If you look at these orange parts--these\nare the additional deficits from tax cuts--starting here, in year 2029,\n2030, you will see that they actually do start going down. Why is that?\nIt is because the tax cut that President Trump promised for no tax on\ntips--they phase those out. This is all just a make-believe ruse: Yes,\nwe start providing no tax on tips, but those disappear.\n  The tax breaks for wealthy people--they go on, and they go on not\njust for this 10-year period. But the reason they violate all the rules\nof reconciliation is because they keep going on after that.\n  As Senator Merkley said, if you look at the entire history of the\nByrd rule--that is Senator Byrd--it was designed to make sure that 51\nSenators, through a vote, could not make these kinds of permanent\nchanges in any area, but specifically they were worried about areas\nthat would increase the national deficit and debt.\n  So what Republican Senators are doing is not only misleading the\nAmerican people, but they are violating the entire structure that\ncarved out this special procedure that we call reconciliation for the\nbudget, which was intended to lower deficits and debts, not have them\ngo on forever.\n  As Senator Merkley has pointed out, I think if you look over a 30-\nyear period, we are talking about $35 trillion-plus additional to the\ndebt, and Republicans want to hide that from the American people.\n  That is budget fraud, pure and simple, and it is a violation of the\nrules of the U.S. Senate, this whole special structure that was created\nnot to blow bigger holes in the debt and deficits but to actually try\nto constrain them. So shame on everybody who is part of this fraud on\nthe American people.\n  I yield the floor.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Would the Senator from Maryland yield for a question?\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. I find it very interesting that the Senator pointed out\nthat these tax provisions for the middle class--that no tax on tips is\nphased out and no tax on overtime is phased out.\n  And what the Senator is saying, I believe, is that when they put into\nthis bill that a tax break is ending, they are saying that it doesn't\ncost any more in the following years.\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So they are simply saying--their current policy\nbaseline that they want us to make believe about would say that this\nwouldn't cost them; in other words, if they extended this, it wouldn't\ncost anything.\n  It is interesting to note--and not only does that expose the fraud\nbehind the current policy baseline, but they made a very deliberate\nchoice. Even though they now say that they can make these tax cuts\npermanent and still comply with the rules, they decided to make the tax\ncuts for very rich people permanent. But even though they say it is not\ngoing to cost anything anymore to provide tax cuts with no tax on tips,\nthey are phasing those out.\n  And all of these areas are where President Trump made promises that\nhe was going to take care of some working people. Well, those go away\nfast. The tax cuts for the rich, they go on for not just a full 10\nyears, but they keep going, which is why this is a violation of the\nentire reconciliation process.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. So I find two things very interesting. They are saying,\nif something was in the law that they passed in 2017 and it expires,\nthey are pretending it doesn't expire and that, therefore, extending it\ndoesn't cost anything. But in their own bill, when they say a provision\nexpires, they are saying: No, it really does die, and, therefore, we\nare saving money in the years after.\n  How are those two things possibly consistent?\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Clearly, they are not. I mean, this is literally\nmagical thinking. This is why Republican Congressman Chip Roy called\nthis ``fairy dust'' and why the Congressman from Arizona said this was\npure intellectual and economic fraud. That is what it is. That is the\nbottom line.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Well, I thank the Senator from Maryland for also\npointing out that President Trump--he did--when he was campaigning, say\nhe was fighting for ordinary families. But at his inauguration, who did\nhe have standing behind him? Not champions for healthcare or champions\nfor housing, and certainly not champions for nutrition or education,\nbut, in fact, a series of five or six billionaires.\n  And now you are telling me that, in this bill--and I want to make\nsure the American people understand this--the provisions that were\nsweeteners to say we were helping working people are being phased out,\nbut they are keeping all the tax breaks for billionaires.\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, the Senator is right. It was right down this\nhall, actually, that President Trump was sworn in, and he said it was\ngoing to be a new golden age for working people. Well, as you are\npointing out and this chart clearly shows and their own budget reveals,\nit is clearly a golden\n\n[[Page S3626]]\n\nage for billionaires and people who make a lot of money. And, in this\nbill, they make sure that that golden age for very rich people goes on\nforever.\n  They had a few little crumbs that they were throwing for a little\nwhile, we can see, to others, but just for a little while and just\nsmall amounts compared to the golden age for the billionaires.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Well, I must say, my impression is--and I hope the\nSenator will correct me if I am wrong--that the Republicans are\nembarrassed by the fact that they are proposing a bill that creates\nover $3 trillion in debt in 10 years and over $30 trillion over 30\nyears and that the vast bulk of it goes to billionaires.\n  And so they want to say: We are so embarrassed because we mentioned\nfiscal responsibility when we were running for office. We were going to\nget the budget under control.\n  And they are doing the opposite, and they are embarrassed that they\nare doing these cuts in programs to fund tax breaks for billionaires,\ncutting regular healthcare--16 million people losing healthcare--for\ntax breaks for billionaires that, as the Senator pointed out, go on and\non and on and are actually permanent.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Would the Senator yield for a question?\n  Mr. MERKLEY. I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. When I was budget chairman and we were trying to\nfocus, for instance, on the impending economic nightmare coming our way\nthrough climate-caused property insurance failures, what I would get is\nnonstop regular lectures from Republicans on the Budget Committee about\nhow we had to take responsibility for the deficit, we had to reduce the\ndebt. Nothing else mattered as much. It was absolutely vital.\n  Now, of course, we see that, as their very first shot with the power\nto do anything through their majority and using reconciliation, they\nare raising the debt, and they are raising the deficit--and not by a\nlittle but by trillions.\n  And I am wondering if, in the Senator's time as chairman or perhaps\nif in Senator Murray's time on the committee or perhaps in Senator Van\nHollen's time over on the House committee, you were favored with such\nconstant lecturing by Republicans about the debt and the deficit and\nhow credible that all seems right now.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. I yield to Senator Murray.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question because it is just\nstunning to me that the vast majority of debate--in fact, all the\ndebate--that came from Republicans at the time I was chair of the\nBudget Committee and trying to put forward a smart budget for the\nUnited States of America--the only thing they talked about--was debt\nand deficit. The only challenge they made to us was debt and deficit.\nThe only time we tried to do anything for childcare, for healthcare,\nthey threw the debt at us.\n  So this is pretty stunning to me that, now that they need to raise\nthe debt for giving tax breaks to the very rich people who stood behind\nthe President at his inauguration, then they play with the numbers and\npretend it is not real, and ``trillion'' all of a sudden becomes\n``zero'' and: I am using some rule you have never heard of to try and\npretend that this isn't real.\n  It is fairy dust.\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just want to say, to answer the question from the\nSenator from Rhode Island and pick up on what my colleagues have said,\nthat when I was the senior Democrat, the ranking member of the House\nBudget Committee, Paul Ryan was the chairman of the committee. And,\nlook, we disagreed on many things; we agreed on many things. We both\nagreed that we should get our deficits and debt under control. We had\ndifferent ideas on how to do it. He wanted to privatize Medicare. We\nwanted to close tax breaks for the rich. But the reality is that the\nHoly Grail--the only guiding North Star for Republicans at that time--\nwas: We have got to bring down deficits and debt.\n\n  This is not that Republican Party--not in any way, shape, or form.\nThey clearly don't give a damn. In fact, they are worried, as we can\nsee, that the American people still care, which is why they want to\nengage in this fraudulent scheme.\n  But I will just close on this: I remember one of those years--I\nbelieve it was the 2012 Republican convention--they even put up a debt\nclock. They put up a debt clock at the convention.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. I can't find it.\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Right? I am looking under my desk for the debt clock\nhere because the Republicans seem to have hidden it away forever. They\nwant to wish it away. That is what they are telling us.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The bill, actually, is required to raise the debt\nlimit by $5 trillion. So, in reality, there is a huge hit to our debt,\nhuge additions to our deficit.\n  And it makes me a little bit frustrated to think back to all those\nlectures that I had to receive as budget chairman, which the Senator\nfrom Maryland witnessed as a longtime member of the Senate Budget\nCommittee, which the ranking member witnessed in his time on the Budget\nCommittee, and which Senator Murray experienced when she chaired the\nBudget Committee. We have been lectured to death by our colleagues. And\nat the very first instance when they had the power to do something\nabout it, they went 180 in the other direction and are cranking the\nnational debt in order to give big benefits to the rich people who fund\ntheir campaigns.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator would yield for a question--and I know we\nneed to move on here--I just want to add one thing. It is not just that\nit is going to be debt. It is the cost to families because of this debt\nthey are putting in place.\n  I would ask the chair of the Budget Committee now, as he knows as I\ndo: People's houses are going to cost more because their mortgage\ninterest rates are going to go up. Their car interest rates are going\nto go up.\n  These are not just magic numbers sitting out there pretending. Real\nfamilies are going to feel the cost of this debt and this deficit.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. I really appreciate that point from my colleague from\nWashington State because, in this bill, it creates so much necessitated\nborrowing that CBO estimates that that borrowing will cause interest\nrates to go up. And when interest rates go up for the Treasury, it goes\nup on your car loan, on your adjustable rate, the mortgage on your\nhouse, and just in general. These are costs that are borne by ordinary\nfamilies.\n  And I find it very interesting because the Republicans were demanding\nwhat they called the dynamic score, saying: Well, won't these cuts\nproduce such a great economy that it will kind of lift all boats and\nproduce more revenue and maybe the deficit won't be as bad.\n  Here is what the Congressional Budget Office found. Again, that is\nthe nonpartisan honest broker. They found that because of the interest\nrates rising as a result of this massive sea of red ink that\nnecessitates massive borrowing that, in fact, those rising interest\nrates will hurt the economy.\n  So there is no dynamic score that produces: Oh, well, it isn't so bad\nafter all.\n  No, it is the opposite, and, in fact, that dynamic argument has\nalways been wrong.\n  And we are looking at the folks who lectured my colleague from Rhode\nIsland. I sat through many of those lectures as well. And I, in my\nhead, went: Wait a minute. Aren't these the folks who did the massive\nocean of red ink in the 2001 Bush tax bill? Aren't these the same folks\nwho produced a massive ocean of ink in another tax bill, 2 years later?\nAren't these the same ones that, in 2017, did a massive ocean of red\nink? And now they are doing it again? How could they possibly be\nputting themselves forward as deficit hawks or debt hawks, not to\nmention that they cheered on two adventures that were a huge tragedy\nfor the United States of America--trying to occupy Afghanistan and\ngoing to war in Iraq--which together added $8 trillion to our debt?\n  And if you take a look at this chart, every time there is a\nRepublican administration, the last deficit while they are in office\ncompared to their first deficit goes up. For Clinton, it went down.\nThat is fiscal responsibility. For George W. Bush, first term, it went\nup. For Obama, it went down. In other words, the Democratic Presidents,\ntime after time after time--Clinton, Obama, Biden--they reduced the\n\n[[Page S3627]]\n\ndeficits while they were in office, and the Republican Presidents,\nwhile they were in office, every single time, increased the deficits.\n  So none of us want to hear any more talk about fiscal responsibility\nfrom across the aisle.\n  Do you want to be fiscally responsible? Vote no on this bill. This\nbill takes and fires 16 million people off of healthcare to finance\nthose tax breaks for billionaires. This bill says 4 million children\nwill go hungry to finance tax breaks for billionaires. This bill is\n``families lose and billionaires win,'' and the debt goes up,\nendangering our ability to do basic programs for the entire next\ngeneration. It is wrong on every count.\n  And I think, collectively, we urge our colleagues to honor the\nargument they have made over time that, in fact, they were concerned\nabout the deficit and they were concerned about American families,\nbecause if you are concerned about the deficit and debt, if you are\nconcerned about families, you must vote no on this bill.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I really want to thank my colleagues. The\nSenator just said they used to call themselves deficit hawks. We need\nto call them deficit robins. They are robbing from you to pay for the\nbillionaires. They are no longer deficit hawks. Agreed?\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleagues. And I think, as Senator\nMerkley said, if you care about the deficit and debt and you don't want\nworking families to have to pay for these tax cuts for billionaires and\nthe rich, vote no on the bill.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would only add as my last words: Watch. Everybody\nwho is here, watch as this goes forward, because we will give the\nRepublicans a chance to reduce the increase to the debt and the deficit\nby peeling back just the tax cuts for the greedy billionaires.\n  We would be voting for working-class tax cuts, I am almost certain.\nWe will have a chance to bring into stark focus through our amendments\nwhat really matters to the folks on the other side of the aisle. And\nthat is the tax cuts for the superwealthy, for the billionaires, for\nthe corporations that are offshoring jobs, and for the biggest\npolluters in the country. That is where their sweet spot is, and we\nwill expose that through these votes.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, just a final word. Those votes, we are\nnot sure when they will start because they are redrafting provisions of\nthis bill right now. That is how little time this Senate will have to\nactually know what is in this 1,000-page bill with all kinds of special\ndeals tucked into it for various Members. We will have little time\nbecause they are still writing it.\n  So those amendments that my colleague from Rhode Island mentioned--\nstay tuned. We are not sure if those amendments are going to start at 2\nin the morning or if they are going to start sometime later tomorrow,\nbut stay tuned and pay attention because you are going to find out who\nstands with families and who stands to hurt families in favor of\nhelping billionaires.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.\n  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think it is a really important\ndiscussion that we had right now about the deficit and the debt, but I\nwant to talk a little bit more about this bill, in general.\n  You know, recent KFF polling shows that this Republican ``Big Ugly\nBetrayal Bill'' is overwhelmingly unpopular. In fact, this thing is\nmore underwater than the Titanic.\n  Nearly two in three Americans view this bill unfavorably. That goes\nup to nearly three in four when they learn it will kick millions--\nmillions--off their health insurance. And it goes up to nearly four in\nfive when they learn it will choke off funding to their local hospital.\n  In other words, the more the American people hear about what is\nactually in this ``Big Ugly Betrayal Bill,'' the more they dislike it.\n  So with that in mind, I want to be here today to say a little bit\nmore about what is in the Republicans' latest version. Spoiler alert:\nIt is still big; it is still ugly; and it is an absolute betrayal of\nthe people who sent us here to fight for them.\n  The Republican plan is still going to mean over 16 million people\nlosing healthcare. As patients get kicked off their ACA plans, kids and\nstruggling families will get kicked off Medicaid.\n  Rural hospitals are going to be forced to shut their doors. The\nRepublican plan is still going to mean more starving families. New\nredtape is going to cut people off from their SNAP benefits that they\nneed to put food on the table, and it is going to take away kids'\nschool meals.\n  The Republican plan still rips away support from the people in this\ncountry who are struggling the most to give away billions in tax breaks\nto billionaires who need help the least.\n  In short, this latest version of the Republicans' bill would still be\none of the biggest transfers of wealth from the people at the bottom to\nthe people at the top in our Nation's history.\n  When it comes to healthcare, this Republican abomination will cause\nmillions of people to lose their insurance and see their costs\nskyrocket in one way or another. It will create mountains of new\npaperwork and bureaucratic barriers that are positively meant to kick\npeople off their Medicaid and ACA coverage. And there is new sabotage\nto the ACA healthcare markets, which will mean more people losing their\naffordable coverage.\n  Meanwhile, there is nothing--a big, fat zero--when it comes to\nrenewing the tax credits Democrats passed to lower your healthcare\ncosts. That is right. While Republicans are showering their billionaire\ndonors in new tax breaks, they will not lift a finger to extend\nhealthcare tax credits that are saving millions of families thousands\nof dollars a year on health coverage.\n  Instead, they are going to make sure people lose healthcare coverage,\nincluding our seniors, people with disabilities, pregnant women,\nmillions of patients who rely on Medicaid. And let's not forget, the\ncuts in their bill are going to shutter hospitals across the country,\nespecially in our rural areas.\n  Do you have Medicaid? Medicare? employer sponsored coverage?\nRegardless, Republicans have some pretty bad news for you because it\nhardly matters what insurance you are on when you don't have a hospital\nto get care anymore.\n  In Washington State, we have 14 rural hospitals that are fighting to\nsurvive and would likely close under this bill, mostly in areas\nrepresented by Republicans, I should add; not to mention, we have six\nrural labor and delivery units that could be forced to close their\ndoors under this bill.\n  Do you know what the Senate Republicans did? They made that problem\nworse. They put even more pressure on our rural hospitals. I am telling\nyou, this betrayal is getting bigger and uglier by the day, and this\ncannot get lost.\n  Republicans want to shut the doors of one of the biggest healthcare\nproviders in the country. They want to defund Planned Parenthood. That\nis wildly harmful and wildly unpopular. It would shutter at least 200\nhealth centers that provide a wide spectrum of care, including cancer\nscreenings, Pap smears, and birth control for millions of women.\n  And let's not forget Republicans are cutting nutrition assistance\ntoo. This big ugly betrayal would make one of the biggest cuts to SNAP\nin history. We are talking around a $200 billion cut over the next 10\nyears. Now, it should be obvious, but that would be devastating for our\ncountry and for our kids' future.\n  And yet Republicans are not giving up on taking dinner off the table,\ntaking school lunch off kids' trays, all so they can shovel tax cuts at\nbillionaires and wealthy corporations.\n  It is worth underscoring the new redtape in their bill is even\ntargeted at some of our most vulnerable families because it expands\nwork requirements to apply to seniors and parents with kids in school.\n  When my dad--a World War II veteran--got sick with multiple\nsclerosis, he lost his job. He lost his job. My mom was at home--seven\nkids she was raising. My dad lost his job, and they had to spend--my\nmom had to spend some time getting some new skills so she could go back\nto work and take care of our family.\n  Do you know what? During that time, we had to rely on food stamps in\n\n[[Page S3628]]\n\nmy family to feed those seven kids in my family. But under this\nRepublican bill today, because neither of my parents had a job during\nthose few months, my family would not be eligible for SNAP benefits. We\nwould not have even gotten food on our table at the worst time in my\nfamily's life.\n  This is wrong.\n  Thanks to those food stamps, my family did get through that rough\npatch, and all seven of us kids grew up to give back to our\ncommunities, whether as a firefighter, middle schoolteacher, or even\nhere as a U.S. Senator.\n  So I can't emphasize enough: Republicans want to cut families from\nSNAP and Medicaid Programs that give people a hand up in hard times.\nWhy? So they can give an enormous handout to the richest people and the\nbiggest companies in our country.\n  Oh, and at the same time, they are making it harder to afford\ngroceries and healthcare. I should mention they are also gutting energy\ninvestments in a completely chaotic way. It is all but guaranteed to\ndrive away jobs and drive up energy costs for all American families.\n  And at the same time in this bill, they are giving billionaires\nbillions of dollars. Republicans are going to give students the short\nend of the stick. This big mess of a bill would tear away programs and\nprotections that make it possible for many students to pursue a higher\neducation. It eliminates grad PLUS loans. It cuts families off from\nparent PLUS loans. It punishes students who go into public service or a\nmedical residency and more.\n  Meanwhile, they are tearing down the guardrails from gutting\nregulations that protect students whose universities commit fraud to\nopening up a Pandora's box for Pell grants with a new loophole that\nwould let low-quality programs suck up our taxpayer dollars.\n  These changes are especially going to hurt students from low-income\nfamilies and first-generation college students and our veterans. Some\nof them will have no way to go to college when Republicans take their\nsupport away.\n  Some will be driven into predatory private loans they can't afford,\nand some will get lured into low-quality programs that take their\nmoney, waste taxpayer dollars, and leave the student worse off.\n  If that wasn't enough, if the Secretary of Education wanted to try to\nstop this kind of fraud and protect students, Republicans will leave\nthem about as much authority as the school hall monitor because in this\nbill, Republicans prevent any Secretary of Education from making\nregulations that carry added benefits for borrowers.\n  And it hardly matters if that is a good impact like saving students\nmoney, protecting taxpayer dollars from fraud, or making higher\neducation more accessible. Republicans are going to make problems worse\nand make fixing them even harder. Students in this country should be\noutraged.\n  I want to be perfectly clear about something: If Republicans charge\nahead with this big awful mess, which they seem intent on doing, they\ncan kiss any last shred of credibility goodbye, as we just talked\nabout, when it comes to pretending to care about balancing the budget\nor addressing the national debt.\n  The idea was already laughable. For the entirety of the 21st century,\nthe biggest driver of the national debt has been tax cuts that\nRepublicans championed. But now, as we just talked about, they want to\nput at least $4 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t''--on the\nnational credit card. Why? So they can shower the richest people on the\nplanet with more money.\n  And then they are pretending all the math works, and it is kind of\njust easy peasy if they only just--they can do it if they kick people\noff healthcare or take enough meals away from kids or close enough\nhospitals or, better still, use some absurd accounting gimmick to\npretend--to pretend--that billions of dollars in new tax cuts for their\nbillionaire donors actually just don't cost anything.\n  Well, I have got some bad news for Republicans: Your math is\nterrible, and so is this bill. This thing is very expensive, and you\ndon't have to take my word for it. Ask the nonpartisan Congressional\nBudget Office, which just said the latest version of this bill will add\n4 trillion--``t'' trillion--to the debt just over the next 10 years.\n  If Republicans want to ignore them, you can also ask the fiscal hawks\nat the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. They calculate that\nthe House bill adds $5 trillion to our debt when you include interest\npayments and the costs of making temporary provisions in this bill\npermanent. And we are told the Senate bill is even less fiscally\nresponsible.\n  Everyone agrees this thing is not beautiful, but it is recklessly\nbig, and it won't just increase the debt; it will blow it up. This may\nvery well be the most expensive bill in history. I say it may be\nbecause Republicans are still planning changes. We have not yet gotten\nthe final bill.\n  They already cut out even more taxes for multinational corporations.\nSNAP benefits, they are still on the chopping block. Healthcare, still\non the chopping block. In fact, they want to cut Medicaid even more\npainfully. We may not know how expensive the Republicans' bill will be\nin the end, but we know who is paying for it--it is you, working\nfamilies.\n  And it is important for people to know, as bad as this bill is,\nRepublicans were trying to make it even worse. Now, Democrats have been\nfighting them every step of the way, and we have notched a few\nimportant wins by challenging every single provision we possibly could\nunder the Senate rules.\n  So I want to talk about some of the things Democrats were successful\nin getting out because if Republicans had had their way, not only would\nthis bill take away more food from our struggling families or shutter\neven more hospitals and kick even more people off their health\ninsurance, it would have also sold off all of our public lands.\n  And instead of just slashing CFPB funding, it would have completely\nshuttered the doors of a very important Federal watchdog that protects\nAmericans from getting scammed.\n  If Republicans had had their way, this bill would make it easier to\nbuy gun silencers, harder to get your earned income tax credit, or pay\noff your student loans, and effectively impossible to get insurance\nplans on the Marketplace to cover abortion care.\n  If Republicans would have had their way, this bill would have also\ngiven Trump more power to deny funding to our constituents on a whim\nand less power for the courts to stop him.\n  We are talking about a full smorgasbord of really awful, unpopular\nideas and policies that would have hurt our families and weakened our\ndemocracy--ideas that were this close to making it into this bill. But\nRepublicans did not have their way. Democrats have been fighting back\nat every single step. We got those provisions tossed in the shredder,\nand we are still doing our darndest to send the rest of the bill to the\nshredder as well.\n  Now, let's be clear. When we talk about how unpopular this bill is\nwith the American people, the reason is simple: This bill polls like\ngarbage because it is garbage. That is why it should go nowhere except\na trash bin.\n  Democrats are going to keep pushing back on this monstrosity with\nabsolutely everything we have got at every step that we can. We are not\ngoing to stand by as Republicans shutter hospitals so the richest\npeople in the country can build another vacation home. We are not going\nto sit around and let Republicans kick millions of people off of their\ninsurance and raise working families' premiums so corporate executives\ncan get a bigger bonus. We are not going to be silent as Republicans\ntake food away from struggling families so they can help billionaires\nfuel up their private jets. We are going to keep speaking up, we are\ngoing to keep pushing back, and we are going to make sure everyone--\neveryone--knows exactly what is going on here.\n  This bill is deeply unpopular--that much is clear--but if Republicans\nkeep pushing for this disaster, buckle up because we are only going to\nkeep getting louder and louder about how big this is, how ugly it is,\nand it is only going to get more unpopular with the folks back home as\nthese provisions are enacted if this bill passes.\n  I am pretty astounded by how far some Republicans are trying to stick\ntheir heads in the sand on this. One Republican Senator told their\nconcerned constituents ``We're all going to die.''\n\n[[Page S3629]]\n\nWell, maybe that is a better name for the bill--at least it is more\nhonest--because when you take healthcare away from people, when you\nmake it harder to get, when you make it harder to afford, when you\nclose the only hospital for miles, yes, you are right, people will die.\n  You would think my colleagues would show a bit more concern about\nthat. Instead, that Senator actually doubled down, and in a response\nvideo, she filmed walking through a cemetery. I don't know how you get\nout of touch that much to misunderstand this, but let me be clear about\nsomething to our Republicans: ``Whistling past the graveyard'' is a\nmetaphor to stop ignoring dangers; it is not a literal messaging\nsuggestion.\n  If you thought Republicans couldn't be any more dismissive to their\nown constituents, this week, another Republican Senator who was\nspeaking about people voicing their concerns about these Medicaid cuts\nsaid people will ``get over it.''\n  I have news for every one of my Republican colleagues who is trying\nto deny the reality of this bill and pretend the fairy tales they are\ntelling themselves are true: When someone's local hospital closes, they\ndon't get over it. When someone's kid is kicked off healthcare, they do\nnot get over it.\n  If Republicans don't want to take my word for it, they can listen to\nthe doctor I spoke with, who warned that when patients go uninsured,\nthey delay care, and it increases costs for everyone. Instead of paying\n$10 for diabetic medication, we will pay $10,000 for an amputation.\n  Or Republicans can actually read the countless letters I am getting\nfrom my constituents sharing their stories:\n\n       My dad is a double amputee. He relies on Medicaid.\n       Without Medicaid, we couldn't get my kid's antiseizure\n     medication.\n\n  Or, I am a full-time caregiver for my daughter with cerebral palsy or\nmy son with spina bifida or my elderly mother, and this bill threatens\nto kick them off their healthcare and the supportive services they rely\non to survive.\n  Better yet, Republicans can go out and talk to their own\nconstituents, because I have no doubt they will hear similar stories.\nThey will even come to you. Advocates have been here in DC all week. I\nhave seen them in the halls. I have heard them from my office.\n  Now the Republicans can listen to the people across the country who\nare warning them about this bill, and they can do the right thing and\nabandon this effort or they can keep ignoring them. But make no\nmistake, in the end, the American people will have their voices and\ntheir votes heard, because at the end of the day, this bill, this\nmonstrosity of a bill, is all in the goal of a tax break for\nmultibillionaires and corporations, and the way they pay for it is by\ntaking away your healthcare and your nutrition, the things your family\nor your neighbors or people you know rely on. That is just wrong, it is\nun-American, and we are fighting back.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.\n  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this partisan\nreconciliation bill. Republicans have named it the One Big Beautiful\nBill, but you would only lose that kind of title if you were trying to\nhide something. And here is the simple truth: This bill takes health\ninsurance and food assistance away from millions of Americans and gives\nPresident Trump's billionaire and millionaire friends giant tax cuts.\n  Indeed, this bill would provide hundreds of billions of dollars in\ntax giveaways to the country's 902 billionaires and millionaires while\nkicking 17 million Americans off their health insurance. Just weigh the\nbalance: 902 billionaire beneficiaries with extraordinary tax\ndeductions and tax benefits versus denial of healthcare to 17 million\nAmericans. It doesn't balance.\n  And despite slashing healthcare, somehow this bill will add trillions\nof dollars to our national debt. It will further weaken our financial\nposition in the world. It will, indeed, have many countries wondering\nif the United States is, as it has been since the end of World War II,\nthe place to put their resources, their investments, their reserves.\n  This could have profound fiscal and monetary implications to the\nUnited States, and if you tie that together with this tariff battle, we\nare headed economically in the wrong direction, as we are socially.\n  And this bill is loaded with outrageous special interest giveaways\nand President Trump's personal political priorities; for example, $7.5\nbillion for wealthy developers to use for luxury housing and other\nhigh-priced developments at a time when affordable housing for working\nfamilies is a crisis in every State in the country; $1.7 billion for\ngunmakers who will be able to sell silencers, sawed-off shotguns,\nshort-barreled rifles, and other very dangerous weapons and components\ntax-free, making our streets more dangerous for police and for the\nAmerican people, and, indeed, especially for the police because they\nare the first responders. They are the ones that are typically going to\nthe door wondering if the person behind that door has an automatic\nweapon or some other weapon designed not to hunt or shoot but to kill.\n  Hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax cuts for extraordinarily\nwealthy oil-and-gas companies, and $40 million for a Garden of Heroes,\na sculpture garden to honor President Trump's favorite historical\npersonalities. And at the same time, it slashes the budget for the\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau, which makes sure that shady\npayday lenders, mortgage lenders, and banks don't fleece American\nfamilies.\n  And, in particular, the military division of the CFPB protects men\nand women in the uniform of the United States. We were able to pass an\ninterest cap of 36 percent for Active-Duty personnel, and that is going\nto be ignored because there is no one to enforce it.\n  And we are going to see, as we have in the past, our soldiers,\nsailors, airmen, guardsmen exploited--systematically exploited--by all\nthose little automobile shops and payday lenders and everything else\nthat surrounds every military base in this country.\n  It is a tale as old as time. My Republican colleagues showering the\nrich with tax benefits and prioritizing favored industries and friends.\nPresident Bush joined with the Republican Congress to do that; of\ncourse, I opposed it. And by the way, when President Bush did that, we\nwere projected to have over the next 10 years a multitrillion-dollar\nsurplus. Of course, this legislation will lead us to a multitrillion-\ndollar deficit, and it is interesting because when I was younger, the\nRepublicans all associated themselves with fiscal responsibility,\nbalanced budgets, surpluses. That is not the case now.\n  President Trump exacerbated the situation in his first term by his\ngrand giveaway, but this time, President Trump and my colleagues on the\nother side of the aisle are depriving millions of Americans of their\nhealthcare coverage to pay for it. They are intent on punishing the\nmost vulnerable Americans in this bill simply for the crime of being\npoor--in fact, in many cases, despite working very long hours and being\npoor.\n  I came here to Congress to the Senate after serving my country in the\nU.S. Army, as the Presiding Officer did with great distinction in the\nU.S. Navy as a Navy SEAL. I came here to serve my constituents and\nimprove the lives of average Americans, and I think most of my\ncolleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, came with the same goal.\n  And according to press reports, a few of my colleagues on the other\nside of the aisle are starting to realize that this bill is going to do\ngreat damage to their constituents. One Republican colleague has warned\nthat this bill could leave 600,000 of his constituents without\nhealthcare coverage and blow a $38 billion hole in his State's budget.\nThat would be a devastating effect.\n  One of the other aspects of this attack on our healthcare system is\nthere are some people that believe, well, Medicaid doesn't touch me. It\ncertainly does because when you extract that much money from the\nhealthcare system, what will private health insurance do? They will\nraise their rates. Everyone will be paying more, and some won't be able\nto afford it. They will have to go without coverage. And that is going\nto be a tragedy for this country.\n  Now, knowing the damage this bill is going to do, one must ask why\nwould\n\n[[Page S3630]]\n\nanyone support it? But this legislation is more than just numbers. I\nhave heard from countless Rhode Islanders who are concerned about these\ncuts during meetings, in letters, when I bump into them at the grocery\nstore, the pharmacy. They have been telling me about how Medicaid has\nhelped them and their families.\n  I have been meeting, for example, with Christina from Smithfield, RI,\nfor many years. Her daughter Lauren was born with cystic fibrosis and\nhas endured countless hospitalizations, procedures, medications, and\nother challenges as she navigates her life with this disease.\nChristina, Lauren, and their family have private insurance, but\nMedicaid also helps cover the expenses not covered by private insurance\nfor people with serious illnesses who are not able to work.\n  When President Trump and congressional Republicans began proposing\nthese cuts to Medicaid, Christina told me:\n\n       Lauren was born with CF, a rare, genetic, progressive\n     disease which affects her lungs, GI, and Endocrine systems.\n       I had no idea we carried this gene. When Lauren was born\n     she spent a month in the hospital. We almost lost her. When\n     she was 5, she contracted a germ that put her in the hospital\n     for a month and almost killed her. Her lung function fell to\n     70 percent. At 13, I thought she was going to die. Her\n     hospital stays were every 3 months for 2 weeks with IV\n     treatments. Her lung function fell to 30 percent.\n       With one of the medicines for CF, she was able to finally\n     get her lung function back to 65 percent at 23 years old. She\n     still suffers every day, just trying to breathe is difficult.\n     If she catches the common cold, it could put her in the\n     hospital. She has a hard time keeping weight on and her GI is\n     a disaster. She spends hours in the bathroom. She developed\n     CF-related diabetes, which always puts her in danger.\n       Every day is rigorous treatments and medications, just to\n     stay alive. It is with the help of the NIH and the FDA that\n     she is still alive. Please do not make these cuts.\n       If Medicaid is cut, when she is 26, two years from now she\n     will have no way to pay for all her hospitalizations,\n     medications, and treatments. Few could afford to keep her\n     alive.\n       It is this simple. Without Medicaid she will die. We need\n     your help!\n\n  Carolina from Central Falls, RI, shared similar concerns for her\ndaughter.\n\n       My daughter has special needs, and we rely on Medicaid for\n     her needs. Not having Medicaid would create a sink hole for\n     us.\n       People with profound autism need lifetime, 24/7 care. As\n     you consider budget cuts, it is important to me as your\n     constituent that you work to ensure that this vulnerable\n     population has access to the critical supports that it needs\n     to survive. I will be looking to you for your courage and\n     leadership.\n\n  Indeed. And now we are looking across the aisle for courage and\nleadership to reject this flawed bill.\n  I received an email from one constituent, Wally from Cranston, RI.\nShe is a 71-year-old retiree on Medicare. Her husband is 72, with\nAlzheimer's disease, living in a nursing home under hospice care and\nrelying on Medicaid for his healthcare. She wrote to me that she was\n``terrified at all the cuts to programs and services'' that she and her\nhusband so desperately rely on. Without Medicaid, she wonders if she or\nher husband would be able to continue receiving care.\n  I also heard from Diane in Coventry, RI, whose daughter gets\nlifesaving care through Medicare. Diane said:\n\n       Medicaid is important to me personally. Medicaid matters to\n     my family. My 15-year-old daughter suffered a brain bleed and\n     a stroke at age 5. It came out of nowhere and was very\n     unexpected. She has spent a lot of time in the hospital,\n     rehabilitation services, doctors' offices, appointments, etc.\n     over the past almost 10 years. Medicaid allows her to be home\n     and taken care of on a daily basis. Without Medicaid, she\n     would not be able to receive hospital level care at home. She\n     wouldn't have a wheelchair or any other durable medical\n     equipment. She wouldn't be able to get her life saving\n     medications or the nourishment she needs through her G tube.\n     Please, I urge you to save Medicaid not only for my family,\n     but millions of others. All of our lives depend on it.\n\n  Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say: We are not\ngoing to cut these people's Medicaid; we are just going after the\nfraudsters, the freeloaders who aren't working.\n  Now, who exactly are these fraudsters and freeloaders? Is it the\nelderly patient who needs expensive nursing home care? Is it the child\nwith a serious, chronic health condition? Should we cut off these\npeople's access to healthcare because they can't work, they physically\ncannot work, or because the constant paperwork requirements got lost in\nthe shuffle?\n  Let's be clear. If my colleagues were serious about eliminating\nfraud, they would be providing States with more resources to\ninvestigate questionable claims and bad actors. Medicaid coverage is\nnot extravagant; it is a lifeline. If my colleagues were sincere in\ntheir claims that these cuts are to protect the program ``for the\npeople who need it the most,'' as the majority leader has claimed, then\nthey would be investing the so-called savings back into Medicaid\ninstead of blowing it on tax cuts for the well-off. Instead, this bill\nis cutting funding to States for Medicaid, and States will have no\nchoice but to pick and choose who will get access to care.\n  But don't take my word for it. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget\nOffice, CBO, estimates that this bill will cause nearly 17 million\nAmericans to lose their health insurance--17 million people. That is\nnot fraud. It is just making it harder for people to get healthcare.\n  On top of that, even if you are one of the lucky ones who gets to\nkeep your Medicaid, will you still be able to get care?\n  Nursing homes rely on Medicaid. More than 6 in 10 nursing home\nresidents in Rhode Island are on Medicaid. As Medicaid funding is cut,\nwhat will nursing homes do? I imagine some will have to close their\ndoors or dramatically reduce the number of beds.\n  So you can be one of these fairly well-to-do Rhode Islanders trying\nto get mom in a nursing home and you are willing to pay, but if it is\nclosed or there are only 5 beds where there used to be 20, she is going\nto be where, in my generation, grandparents were: in the living room in\na hospital bed being cared for--in those days, typically by your\nmother.\n  So this approach to Medicaid is going to touch every aspect of\nAmerican life, and the same can be said about the community healthcare\ncenters. Medicaid makes up a huge portion of the operating budget for\ncommunity health centers, which provide primary, dental, and behavioral\ncare to more than 200,000 Rhode Islanders. That is roughly one in five\nRhode Islanders.\n\n  It is hard enough to find a doctor now; it will only get harder if a\ncommunity health center closes its doors and thousands of patients\ndon't have a doctor anymore. And where do all those patients end up\nwhen they can't get routine care? The emergency room. That means there\nwill be lines out the door, and if you have a serious health event and\nneed to get in, you better get used to waiting a long time.\n  This is not how a health system is supposed to run. And in Rhode\nIsland, our health system is already on the brink. People are just\ngetting by. People are waiting in the hallways of ERs for a bed\nupstairs. People are spending days on the phone trying to find a\ndoctor.\n  We should be making these things better, not worse. But, again,\nRepublicans' main priority seems not to be the physical or financial\nhealth of everyday Americans; it is providing massive tax cuts to\nPresident Trump's billionaire and millionaire friends.\n  There is certainly nothing wrong with being successful, and there is\nnothing wrong with wealth. That is something that has been part of the\nAmerican dream since our beginning. But what it requires is\nopportunity, and one of the fundamental opportunities it requires is\ngood health and good education. What this bill will do is destroy our\nhealthcare system and force the States to make dramatic cuts to the\neducation system. We are shutting down opportunity in America while we\nenrich the wealthy elite.\n  The American dream, as I believe it, is about the middle class and a\ngovernment that is focused on them, not taking $1 trillion from\nMedicaid so Republicans can gift to those who have already benefited\nfrom many other gifts.\n  Let's put the enormity of this transfer to the wealthiest in\nperspective. There are about 128 million households in America. Yet\nsomehow this bill gives the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households a\n$250,000 tax cut--a giveaway that is over three times larger than what\nthe median American household makes in a year.\n  When confronted with this point, Republicans consistently try to hide\nthe ball. Middle- and working-class Americans are getting tax cuts too,\nthey say. Who cares if the rich get richer? Well,\n\n[[Page S3631]]\n\nthe Senate bill raises taxes on the lowest income Americans--the same\nfamilies from whom Republicans are ripping away healthcare and other\nbenefits.\n  While we are voting on this bill without a full analysis of its\nimpact on households, the Congressional Budget Office found that the\nHouse-passed version would take around $1,600 away from these lowest\nincome households each year after accounting for tax changes and\nbenefits cuts. And it is not just low-income Americans. Researchers at\nPenn's Wharton School of Business have found that most Americans lose\nmoney under the House bill in future years too.\n  I want to be crystal clear. We need to reform our tax system. We need\nto make it fairer for working Americans, not just for the ultrawealthy.\nWe hear from people so often that government is broken. They are right.\nOur tax system is unfair and needs reform. But giving the top one-tenth\nof 1 percent of Americans an extra quarter of a million dollars every\nyear is not fixing the government; it is just adding to the sense of\nunfairness and brokenness that so many citizens feel.\n  We can do a bipartisan tax bill that is both fully paid for and that\nhelps average Americans. In fact, we almost did that last summer when\nthe House passed a tax bill 357 to 70 that would have extended the\nchild tax credit and reinstated tax cuts for businesses without\nincreasing the deficit. Forty-eight bipartisan Senators voted for that\nbill in this very Chamber, but it was blocked because Republican\nleaders wanted to pass something like this bill before us today.\n  My Republican colleagues have drafted a bill that is neither paid for\nnor helps most Americans. Worst of all, they have chosen to take from\nthe poor and the middle class and the working class to give to\nbillionaires.\n  This bill is very bad policy. It is almost un-American if you believe\nthat the essence of America, as expressed by one of our greatest\nPresidents, Abraham Lincoln, is to give every person a fair chance in\nthe race of life. This bill denies that chance to millions and millions\nof Americans while enhancing and filling the pockets of the wealthiest,\nand I oppose it.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.\n  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague\nSenator Reed, and he is absolutely right that this bill is almost un-\nAmerican. In fact, I would say it is un-American because it is so\ndestructive to the middle class, to healthcare, to education, to basic\nfairness and decency in our great country, the greatest country in the\nhistory of the world.\n  It would balloon the debt and the deficit by $4 trillion, and yet my\nRepublican colleagues have sought to disguise and hide that\nreprehensible pain and damage to the American system.\n  It would cut Medicaid by $930 billion, which means billions in cuts\nfor Connecticut, hundreds of thousands of Connecticut children and\nfamilies off Medicaid, food nutrition shredded, and student loans\ndecimated.\n  These kinds of impacts on Connecticut are mirrored through the whole\ncountry.\n  And the American people are beginning to get it. That is why this\nbill--this so-called One Big Beautiful Bill--is so deeply unpopular--in\nfact, by a 2-to-1 majority.\n  I want to talk not only about Connecticut but two of the States that\nare represented by colleagues here. They are so-called red States. But\nmake no mistake, this bill is seismically catastrophic not just for\nConnecticut but for the whole country and for Louisiana, where this\nmeasure, if it is passed, will mean that my colleagues from Louisiana\nare voting to kick roughly 250,000 people in their State off health\ninsurance. They will be voting for a bill that could close 33 rural\nhospitals in their State alone and cost their State's healthcare\nproviders $588 million for services that newly insured patients simply\nwill not be able to pay back. Their State program would lose $4\nbillion.\n  That is Louisiana alone in funding.\n  These numbers are staggering, and they are the reason that every\nmajor health system in Louisiana is opposing this bill. Just yesterday,\nthey sent a letter warning that cuts in this bill--and I am quoting the\nLouisiana healthcare providers here--``would be historic in their\ndevastation and warrant our shared advocacy to protect our patients and\nthe care we provide them in hospitals and clinics.''\n  I could go on about Louisiana. I am going to abbreviate my remarks\nand ask unanimous consent to put my full statement in the Record.\n  This bill also reduces SNAP benefits for 206,000 Louisianians. It\neliminates the benefits entirely for 94,000 of them.\n  I want to see my colleagues from Louisiana go home and face their\nconstituents, having cut the legs from SNAP and the Medicaid Program\nand many other benefits.\n  And in Utah, that same tragic scenario is unfolding in a State where\n337,000 children and adults depend on Medicaid. Nearly half of all\nchildren in Utah are covered by Medicaid and 59 percent of nursing home\nresidents, and 60,000 people living in rural Utah communities are\ncovered by Medicaid.\n  If this bill passes, at least 180,000 Utahns will lose healthcare\ncoverage, and Utah's uninsured rate will increase by a staggering 67\npercent. If this bill passes, 31,000 of the people in Utah could see\ntheir benefits slashed, and 13,000 would risk losing their benefits\nentirely.\n  I just want to say, in conclusion, these numbers for Connecticut, for\nLouisiana, for Utah, for the State of Washington--and my wonderful\ncolleague Senator Cantwell will be talking shortly--they are not just\nnumbers. They are faces. They are lives. They are children who are just\nbeginning to be Americans, and their productivity and their\ncontributions back to America will be hamstrung. Their lives will be\nfinancially handicapped, and healthwise, they will be impaired as a\nresult of these irresponsible and reprehensible cuts.\n  I couldn't be angrier about these kinds of cuts in programs, done\nonly so that the ultrawealthy will receive tax cuts. I am willing to\nbet that a lot of those billionaires and millionaires would forego\nthose tax benefits if they understood the consequences. But my\nRepublican colleagues, who are in disarray at this moment, they can't\ncome together on a program because they know how abhorrent its effects\nwould be on their States. They ought to listen to the people of\nAmerica, not the ultrawealthy. The people are speaking in the polls.\nThey are speaking through their elected representatives. And they are\nspeaking because their conscience simply won't let them support a bill\nthat does such abhorrent damage to the American middle class, the\nAmerican way of life, and American values.\n  I am proud to stand here. I wish we weren't here going all night into\nMonday morning. But I am proud to stand here with my colleagues. I just\nwish my Republican colleagues were on the same side of these issues,\nbecause they are going to go home, and they will have to face the\nchildren and families who will be hurt so deeply by this bill.\n  Mr. President, I stand here today to, again, express my staunch\nopposition to the proposed Republican reconciliation bill. This\nlegislation includes sweeping cuts that would raise costs for the\nAmerican people and make it harder to access health care and food.\n  Over the past few weeks, my Democratic colleagues and I have spoken\nat length about the impact this bill would have on everyday Americans.\nThis reconciliation bill is not about savings or government efficiency.\nIn fact, the Congressional Budget Office found just last night that it\nwill INCREASE the deficit by $4 trillion.\n  Instead, this bill funds tax cuts for billionaires by gutting life\nsustaining services like SNAP and Medicaid that help everyone else. It\nwill cut $930 billion from Medicaid--that is $930 billion that helps\nstates provide health care services to their residents--and lead to\nnearly 12 million people losing coverage. That's 12 million people who\nwon't have health insurance when their child breaks their arm on the\nplayground, or when they feel a lump that could be cancer.\n  This budget is a disaster for Connecticut.\n  But this budget will not just harm Connecticut. It will not just harm\nthose living in blue states. This budget will harm Americans in every\nstate across the country. That is why I am joining my Democratic\ncolleagues to share some of the impacts this legislation will have on\nthe Americans whose\n\n[[Page S3632]]\n\nSenators plan to vote for these cuts. If my Republican colleagues do\nnot want to highlight these harms, we will.\n  In Louisiana, nearly 2 million people are enrolled in Medicaid. This\nincludes 64% percent of moms giving birth, 54% percent of children, and\n74% percent of seniors in nursing homes. One-fifth of Louisiana's\nMedicaid population lives in a rural area where access to coverage is\nalready difficult.\n  Medicaid also supports school health professionals, like speech\npathologists, occupational therapists and school psychologists. Without\nMedicaid, many of the 96,000 students with disabilities in Louisiana\nschools could have essential services ripped away from them. Is\nLouisiana expected to pick up the bill for these kids? Will the parents\nbe forced to pay? Or will these children just lose out on these\nservices entirely because their legislators decided that tax cuts for\nthe rich are more important?\n  Currently, the state of Louisiana receives $13 billion in federal\nMedicaid funding every year. That means that my colleagues from\nLouisiana are voting to kick roughly 250,000 people in Louisiana off\ntheir health insurance. The majority of the Louisiana Congressional\nDelegation is poised to vote for a bill that could close 33 rural\nhospitals and cost the state's health care providers $588 million for\nservices that newly uninsured patients simply will not be able to pay\nback. The state Medicaid program would lose $4 billion in funding.\n  These numbers are staggering, but they will never fully capture the\nimpact on Louisiana families. How many couples will now have to pay out\nof pocket if they want to have a baby? How many will simply forgo\nhaving a child altogether? How many grandparents will see their care\nworsen because of cuts to nursing homes? How many kids will miss a\ndoctor's appointment because mom and dad can't afford to pay the bill?\nThese cuts aren't just numbers--they will impact lives and livelihoods\nfor everyone, even those who keep their coverage.\n  That is why every major health system in Louisiana is opposing this\nbill. Just yesterday, they sent a letter warning that the cuts in this\nbill, and I am quoting Louisiana health care providers here, ``would be\nhistoric in their devastation and warrant our shared advocacy to\nprotect our patients and the care we provide them at our hospitals and\nclinics.''\n  That is straight from the people providing care in Louisiana.\nHistoric devastation for the state.\n  The letter went on to say, and I quote: ``[The] economic consequences\npale in comparison to the harm that will be caused to residents across\nthe state, regardless of insurance status, who will no longer be able\nto get the care that they need.''\n  The letter highlighted nearly 17,000 jobs likely to be lost in the\nState and tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. It is just\nsenseless. It is a senseless cut to the State's budget, to the State's\nhealth care system, and to the State's economy.\n  However, Republicans are not stopping there. They are also going\nafter SNAP benefits.\n  In Louisiana, one in six people live with food insecurity. The SNAP\nprogram helps. This federal program feeds hungry people. That is it.\nThat is what the program does. SNAP supports 849,163 people in\nLousiana, including over 22,000 veterans, 33% of households with older\nadults, and 50% of households with children. That means 377,258\nchildren in Louisiana were fed, in part, by SNAP. This bill would\nreduce SNAP for 206,000 Louisianans and eliminate the benefit entirely\nfor 94,000.\n  I want to be clear about what this means. SNAP feeds people. These\ntaxpayer dollars make sure children and veterans have enough food to\neat. They make sure our friends and loved ones who have fallen on hard\ntimes don't go hungry. They make sure our neighbors can afford to share\na meal with family.\n  We can debate day and night about our Federal spending, but this\nfunding--keeping our Nation fed--should not be controversial. But this\nbill will force people to go hungry. It will force kids to lose out on\nschool meals. It will overwhelm already stretched Louisiana food banks.\nPeople facing hunger in Louisiana report needing an estimated $528\nmillion more per year to meet their food needs. This bill will\nexacerbate that. Simply put, the Federal cuts in this bill will force\npeople in Louisiana to go hungry or pay more at the grocery store.\n  A similar and tragic scenario would unfold in Utah where 337,000\nchildren and adults depend on Medicaid. Nearly half of all children in\nUtah are covered by Medicaid, 59% of nursing home residents in Utah are\ncovered by Medicaid, and 60,000 people living in rural Utah communities\nare covered by Medicaid. If this bill passes at least 180,000 Utahns\nwill lose health coverage, and Utah's uninsured rate will increase by a\nstaggering 67%.\n  As a result of this bill, Utah's health care system will lose an\nestimated $559 million per year in Federal funding, making it nearly\nimpossible for the State to maintain current levels of coverage,\nbenefits, and payments to providers.\n  Providers in Utah are speaking out. Kasey Shakespear, from the Rural\nHealth Association of Utah, said of the bill, and I am quoting him\nhere: ``It's going to dramatically reduce the support rural Utah is\ngetting from the state of Utah and take a lot of resources away from\nthem that are crucial to their success.''\n  An OB-GYN from Utah specifically spoke about the impact of the\nRepublican bill on pregnant women and their newborn infants. He said:\n``I don't think I can count the number of times where Medicaid has made\na difference in my practice.''\n  He told us about the women he saw in his practice who, because of\nMedicaid coverage, were able to bring home a healthy baby. Moms in Utah\nwho did not have to worry about accessing care or how to pay for\ncoverage, and whose pregnancy complications were kept to a minimum as a\nresult. This Utah doctor said, and I am quoting him again here: ``If\nCongress slashes Medicaid funding, this kind of care disappears for\nthousands of Utahns.''\n  Do my colleagues from Utah really support taking away support for new\nmoms and their children?\n  Utahns will also face greater food insecurity. Right now, one in\nseven people in the State struggle to put food on the table and more\nthan 178,000 residents depend on SNAP. This include nearly 5,000\nveterans, 56% of households with children, and 32% of households with\nolder adults.\n  If this bill passes, 31,000 Utahns could see their benefits slashed\nand 13,000 would be at risk of losing their benefits entirely. This\ncould have severe consequences for the Utah Food Bank, the primary food\nbank distributing food to a network of over 200 partner agencies across\nthe state.\n  These statistics are not just numbers, and these cuts are not\nabstract. They represent real people, real families, and real harm. It\nis our duty to protect our constituents, but it is also our duty to\nprotect the American people. As U.S. Senators, we were not elected by a\npolitical party. We were elected by the constituents in our States who\nentrusted us with the responsibility of representing and protecting\nthem at the highest level.\n  In publishing this reconciliation bill forward, my Republican\ncolleagues are prioritizing partisan loyalty.\n  My Republican colleagues have access to the same data that I do. They\nknow how devastating this bill would be and I implore them to remember\nthat their responsibility is to their constituents, and the people of\nthe country, and not to President Trump and his billionaire cronies.\n  I want to conclude by reading from the letter that Louisiana\nhealthcare organizations sent. The letter ends by saying, and I quote\nthe Louisiana healthcare community here: ``Protecting Medicaid is not\njust about avoiding budget cuts; it is a commitment to our shared\nvalues of community, resilience, and economic vitality.''\n  The letter goes on, and I quote: ``We take no pleasure in having to\nspeculate about the impact of these cuts. However, in light of the cuts\nbeing proposed, we must have honest conversations together, and with\nyou--the communities we serve. Louisiana and our healthcare delivery\nsystem are at a crossroads. We face the largest cut to healthcare in\nour state's history. Will our leaders in Washington choose to protect\nthe health of our people, hospitals and economy? We are counting on\nthem to do so.''\n\n[[Page S3633]]\n\n  Mr. President, all of us, in Connecticut, in Utah, and in Louisiana,\nare counting on them, too. Let's hope our commitment to shared values\nrises above partisan politics, and that this devastating bill can be\nvoted down.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.\n  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to turn down\nthis legislation in front of us--to reject it and instead work together\non fiscal policy that would help us by growing our economy more\nsuccessfully and not devastating for our constituents.\n  Before I start, I want to thank the Presiding Officer for speaking up\nabout not selling public lands. I very much appreciate his voice in\nthat debate--and critical that we were able to successfully get that\nout of this legislation.\n  I want to work across the aisle to talk about these policies so that\nwe can move our country forward in a competitive fashion. But I am\nafraid that what we have in front of us is not the answer to what will\nmake America competitive, particularly at a time when we are putting\ntariffs on American imported products, when we are basically getting\ninto a trade war, and when we are devastating what I think is the\nunderpinning of the economy of today, that is an Information Age\ninnovation economy, and here we are devastating all of our investments\nin NIH and NSF and in the competitiveness that we just implemented in\nthe IRA and the CHIPS and Science Act that is making us the envy of\ncountries around the world for innovation.\n  We do have great capital markets, and those capital markets help us\ninnovate. And I think some of my colleagues think, well, we have a\npromise to families here to give them a tax break, and while many of us\nwould support that, you are asking us also to give tax breaks to big\ncorporations before they can get their tax break.\n  And that, we don't like. We don't like it because it raises the cost\non everybody, and that cost for middle-class and lower-income people\nwill be devastating, particularly at a time when we continue with this\ntariff policy.\n  This bill would make the entire healthcare system less responsive and\nmore expensive for everyone by dismantling Medicaid and shifting more\nof the cost burden onto States and threatening the very existence of\nrural hospitals.\n  This bill also sells spectrum out from under our national defense and\nsafety Agencies and forces States to choose between protecting their\ncitizens from dangerous AI or providing broadband service. And it just\ngives away big breaks to companies like Meta--that is Facebook--or\nGoogle, who I am sure at this point in time don't really need that\nadditional tax break.\n  Clearly, though, the most egregious and certainly most destructive\npart of this reconciliation is the changes to healthcare--the fact that\n17 million people will be uninsured and raise the cost on everyone.\nThis is from the Congressional Budget Office.\n  We don't need to be raising healthcare costs on our constituents. The\nCBO analysis revealed that hasty, negotiated updates by Republicans\ndiscussed behind closed doors early Saturday morning, added that $130\nbillion in Medicaid cuts to the bill. That is a whopping $930 billion\nin total Medicaid cuts.\n  That is how CBO got to this number of 17 million people. The\nchallenge is, nobody marked up a bill in committee. Nobody even had a\nhearing where somebody presented this information. No, this is all\nbeing changed on a daily basis, and everybody is trying to catch up,\nbut what we are really trying to do is fight for our constituents and\nmake sure that we know the impacts.\n  The impacts of these 17 million people will be severe cuts felt in\nevery corner of the United States. State governments will be the first\nto feel the tsunami of cuts, and unlike the Federal Government, they\nmust balance their budget, so they can't borrow the money to make up\nfor the deficit.\n  In our State, the State of Washington, our Governor and legislators\nhave to grapple with an estimated $3 billion shortfall that this will\nbring to them as a result of this many people losing coverage.\n  Friday, I held a virtual press conference with a group of Republican\nState representatives. A Republican Utah State Representative Ray Ward,\nwho just also happens to be a physician, warned that these cuts will\namount to $1 billion budget deficit per year in his State of Utah. That\nbudget shortfall forces his State government to make some very\ndifficult decisions. They have to decide whether to cut reimbursements\nto providers, cut medical services, cut more people off the rolls, or\nmake drastic measures like increasing everyone's taxes.\n  Kevin Leonard and Steve Hobbs, one of them is the executive director\nof the Association of County Commissioners of North Carolina and the\nother a former Missouri representative, basically said, as county\ngovernment leaders and State leaders, they are worried that this bill\nbasically is an unfunded mandate on them. Commissioner Hobbs said where\nthey will feel it most is that services like behavioral treatment will\nnow have to be provided through the jails instead of a medical setting.\n  Our own Peninsula Behavioral Health expert, who was on the call,\nbasically said that in their region of our State, this could be as much\nas a 25-percent to 45-percent cut in behavioral health.\n  So that is what happens when you cut people off of Medicaid. The\namount of money, since $1 in $5 is a Medicaid dollar, you are going to\ntake that much out of the system. These people do not operate on wild,\nprofitable margins, oftentimes barely breaking even, or in behavioral\nhealth, oftentimes losing money.\n  But I guarantee you, if instead of seeing this Medicaid population in\na behavioral health setting, you think you are going to see them in the\nemergency room or a jail, it is going to cost us a lot more money. It\nis going to cost our State, our county, and the local region a lot more\nmoney.\n  Not only will this bill diminish their Medicaid revenues, but it will\nalso increase the uncompensated care some are estimating to be $42\nbillion. Our rural hospitals, our rural healthcare challenges will be\ndevastating.\n  In Washington, over 300,000 people will lose health insurance. And\nthese are people who were easily treatable. Conditions that if you\ntreat them, chances are they will be dealt with. But now, if you don't\ntreat them, they are going to go to the emergency room, and they are\ngoing to raise costs on everyone.\n  These families depend on this care. Last week, I spoke on the floor\nabout one of my constituents. Britton Winterrose talked about his\ndaughter Leda, a 5-year-old girl who had a rare condition where she\nstops breathing in her sleep if she doesn't have oxygen. Mr. Winterrose\ntalked about how, even though he had a very expensive platinum plan, it\ndidn't cover her costs. And just by doing this Medicaid and covering\ntheir cost, basically they have saved her life, and they have enjoyed\nher, in the many years that they have given to them.\n  Why are we making the Winterroses sweat over whether their daughter\nis going to be able to keep Medicaid, about whether the whole system in\ntheir part of our State is going to be able to keep doing Medicaid?\n  Right now, people are estimating that 5.4 million people will get\npushed into medical debt because of healthcare and the cuts in this\nbill, the total amount of medical debt that Americans will owe will\nincrease by $50 billion. So is it really worth it to take $880\nbillion--or whatever it is now--$930 billion out of Medicaid, so that\nyou are actually increasing the personal debt of people, making\ncounties basically have unsustainable budgets, or having State\nlegislatures come back in to cover our costs? As one of these\ncommissioners said, this is nothing more than cost shifting to the\nStates. It is irresponsible.\n  According to the Center for American Progress, a 60-year-old couple,\nwho will be in the Affordable Care market today, making $85,000 a year,\ncould see their annual premiums raise as much as $15,400.\n  Why? Because when you have uncompensated care and you basically kick\npeople out of Medicaid and off of the Affordable Care Act, what you are\ngoing to do is raise premiums on all of us.\n  A low-income Medicare recipient also qualifying for Medicaid could\nsee their costs go up as much as $8,340. So why\n\n[[Page S3634]]\n\nare we doing this? And the out-of-pocket expenses, now, that a Medicaid\nperson has to pay for, they could be paying as much as $1,650. You want\nto do that to give a tax break to Google and Facebook? That is why you\nare doing this? The tax break that you want to give them--\nmultinationals.\n  And I could just say for a minute about this, when the 2017 tax bill\ncame along and everybody said, the corporate rate is too high. We need\nto have our companies be competitive around the world. I would have\nconsidered lowering that rate to something. In fact, my colleague\nSenator Kaine from Virginia proposed something. But we didn't accept\nthat. Instead, they lowered it to a very low rate, and then said, this\nyear, we will smidge it back up. That means they will increase it back\nup a little bit this year. That was their plan.\n  But somehow, these multinational corporations have got to my\ncolleagues on this side of the aisle and basically said, ``Give us the\nsame rate that we had in 2017.'' Now, the reason I didn't support that\nin 2017 is because it was kind of ludicrous. You were saying to\ncompanies like Microsoft, ``We'll give you a tax break,'' I don't think\nthey really needed that big of a tax break, and ``But by the way, we're\ngoing to raise taxes on the people who work at Microsoft. We are going\nto raise, because of the SALT deduction, we're going to raise your\ntaxes.''\n  So, literally, hundreds of thousands of people in my State paid\nhigher taxes to do what? Give Microsoft a tax break, which they gave in\ndividends. Now, did that help our economy? Did that help really grow\nour economy? I am pretty sure the innovation at Microsoft helped grow\nour economy. I am pretty sure the people who hustled on AI helped grow\nour economy. I am sure the investments that we made at Agencies across\nour Federal Government helped us meet the challenges that we are facing\nin innovation and competition from China, not that dividend. But now we\nare doubling up again. And how much is that multinational tax break?\nOver $200 billion.\n  So literally, you could take half of that money, and you could give\nit to Medicaid instead and not cut Medicaid. Now, let's see, tax breaks\nto Meta and Google or paying for Medicaid? Tax breaks for Facebook and\nMeta--the same company now changing their name--and Google--or making\nsure there's enough revenue to pay for Medicaid?\n  This is ludicrous: the notion that we are continuing to make big\ncorporations the priority when they knew this tax extension was not\ncoming. And I am pretty sure if you look at the numbers that you see\nfrom Facebook--Meta--and Google, you will see they don't really need a\ntax break. They are doing pretty well right now.\n  So the budget reconciliation bill really threatens our progress on\nhealthcare. Now, let me explain what I mean by that. It is not enough\nto just say that this healthcare issue that we are really winning the\nday, when you look at what happened to us in healthcare, when our whole\ngoal of doing the Affordable Care Act was to basically get more people\ncovered under insurance. Why? Because we wanted to lower all the costs\non healthcare overall. We wanted healthcare costs to go down, and we\nwanted the cost of premiums and the cost to individuals to go down and\nto be more like the rate of inflation: 3 percent to 4 percent. That has\nbeen our goal forever--forever.\n\n  And so, prior to the Affordable Care Act, rates on an annual basis--\nthink about this--on an annual basis, your healthcare premiums, your\nhealthcare costs, were generally rising about 5.4 percent a year. OK.\nWho could keep up with that? Who could keep up with every year your\nhealthcare costs continuing to rise?\n  And so we did the Affordable Care Act--and guess what? We did get\nthat into the rate of inflation. I think there is more we could have\ndone. Lots of things happened in between, but we literally got it down\nto 3.7 percent, and we did that by covering more people.\n  The audacity of my colleagues over here to now claim that Medicaid\nexpenses got too expensive when, in reality, we made this choice to\ndrive down these premium costs, so they were only rising close to\ninflation, and that was our goal, and we succeeded.\n  So what are we doing now? Well, under the GOP plan, Wakely Healthcare\nInstitute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, these are\nnumbers that come from them, the GOP plan will now go back to raising\nyour premiums and your healthcare costs between 7 percent and 11\npercent a year--a year.\n  Right? So we are going to go blowing way past the 5.4 percent; we are\ngoing to go back here. And why? Because you are going to cut off\nmillions of people from healthcare. You are going to increase the cost\nof uncompensated care. You are going to make people wait to go to\nemergency rooms, and then they are going to be sicker, and that is\ngoing to cost--I don't know how much it costs, but it is definitely a\nmultiple of five or more.\n  I don't know if it is--what do you think it is, Kevin, an emergency\nroom? Ten. OK, 10. He says 10. It is 10 times more expensive to deal\nwith somebody at an emergency room than to just get health insurance\nand get covered.\n  OK. So now we want to know, why are we raising the cost on\neverybody's health insurance, including these plans because this side\nof the aisle basically wants to cut a bunch of people out of a system\nthat lowered the cost of healthcare plans overall and kept it more in\nthe rate of inflation? Why? Why would you want to do this?\n  So it makes no sense, and I hope our colleagues will think long and\nhard about that. I also think that you could still take the Google,\nMeta tax break for multinationals and pay for $100 billion and cover\nthe Medicaid.\n  You could take another $100 billion from that big tax break, and you\ncould pay for some of the energy tax credits that were so essential to\ncombating the Chinese in what they are doing on the clean energy front.\nThe Chinese firms are doing everything they can to invest and undercut\nthe United States in EV and battery technology. The U.S. is responding\naggressively to that. That is why we did the Inflation Reduction Act.\n  In fact, because of the Inflation Reduction Act, we basically enacted\nmore than 2,000 new clean energy industrial manufacturing facilities,\nmore than 980,000 private sector jobs, and more than 3.4 million\nAmericans claimed clean energy tax credits that improve their\nefficiencies. In fact, the Joint Economic Committee estimated that the\ntypical household could save between $460 and $1,000 in annual energy\ncosts thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act.\n  But what do we have now? We have President Trump and inflation. We\nhave inflation because of multiple issues, consumers struggling to keep\nup amid higher prices, mounting debt and fiscal uncertainty. That is\nwhat we have.\n  And so we are reversing the very tax credits that help lower the cost\nand were going to help us be competitive against China and help us\nsucceed as a nation. And the one thing that I always think the United\nStates is really great at, and that is innovation. I don't know if it\njust started with Ben Franklin or many other people along the way, but\nyou give Americans the task, and they will do the job. If you give them\nthe education, if you give them the R&D with a university partner, they\nwill get the job done.\n  And so now, don't take my word for it. Take Mr. Musk's word for it:\n``The latest Senate draft bill [will destroy] millions of jobs in\nAmerica and causes immense strategic harm to our country. Utterly\ninsane, destructive. It gives handouts to the industries of the past\nwhile severely damaging the industries of the future.''\n  Yeah, he said it best.\n  But back to that chart. We were doing the energy because we wanted to\ndiversify, but we also wanted to lower costs, and we wanted to be\ncompetitive. Right here, it says the vehicle, vehicle, vehicle, OK?\nNatural gas, propane. OK. That is why we were diversifying--because all\nthose things are going up.\n  So this bill is not going to help electricity. You are getting rid of\nthe electricity tax credit. So again, instead of helping Meta and\nhelping Google, you could be helping to lower the inflationary cost by\nmaking the investments in these tax credits.\n  But, Mr. President, there is more in this bill that I don't like. My\ncolleague from Texas is proposing an AI moratorium. He literally wants\nto stop States\n\n[[Page S3635]]\n\nfrom regulating the rollout of autonomous vehicles like Texas Governor\nGreg Abbott, who signed a law last week to regulate how autonomous\nvehicles are licensed and deployed in Texas. And how do proponents of\nthis moratorium propose to get started? By holding broadband money\nhostage unless you implement an AI moratorium.\n  Well, I know what the Heritage Foundation said. The Heritage\nFoundation said that the Federal AI power grab could end State\nprotection for kids and workers. Again, you are giving States a big fat\nbill, and now, you are trying to override laws that have been on the\nbooks for a long time, protecting consumers from fraud, from abuse, and\nthey are there to protect kids, and now, you want to get rid of them.\nSo it is no surprise that stakeholders on the right and left opposed\nthis in the bill--they include 17 Republican Governors and 40 attorneys\ngeneral from both Democrats and Republicans, and other organizations\nranging from the Heritage Foundation to the Center for American\nProgress.\n  So anytime you can get the Center for American Progress and the\nHeritage Foundation on the same side of an issue, chances are you\nshould be listening to what they have to say.\n  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record\nthis letter from the National Association of Attorneys General.\n       There being no objection, the material was ordered to be\n     printed in the Record, as follows:\n\n                                                     May 16, 2025.\n       Dear Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Thune, Minority\n     Leader Jeffries, and Minority Leader Schumer: We, the\n     undersigned attorneys general (the ``State AGs''), write to\n     voice our opposition to the amendment added by the U.S. House\n     Energy and Commerce Committee to the budget reconciliation\n     bill that imposes a 10-year prohibition on states from\n     enforcing any state law or regulation addressing artificial\n     intelligence (``AI'') and automated decision-making systems.\n     The impact of such a broad moratorium would be sweeping and\n     wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent\n     known harms associated with AI. This bill will affect\n     hundreds of existing and pending state laws passed and\n     considered by both Republican and Democratic state\n     legislatures. Some existing laws have been on the books for\n     many years.\n       The promise of AI raises exciting and important\n     possibilities. But, like any emerging technology, there are\n     risks to adoption without responsible, appropriate, and\n     thoughtful oversight. In the absence of federal action to\n     install this oversight, over the years, states have\n     considered and passed legislation to address a wide range of\n     harms associated with AI and automated decision-making. These\n     include laws designed to protect against AI-generated\n     explicit material, prohibit deep-fakes designed to mislead\n     voters and consumers, protect renters when algorithms are\n     used to set rent, prevent spam phone calls and texts, require\n     basic disclosures when consumers are interacting with\n     specific kinds of AI, and ensure identity protection for\n     endorsements and other AI-generated content. Perhaps most\n     notably, of the twenty states that have enacted comprehensive\n     data privacy legislation, the overwhelming majority included\n     provisions that give consumers the right to opt out of\n     specific kinds of consequential, automated decision-making\n     and require risk assessments before a business can use high-\n     risk automated profiling.\n       As evidenced by this brief overview, states are enforcing\n     and considering not just laws that seek to regulate AI or\n     automated decision-making more generally, but also carefully\n     tailored laws targeting specific harms related to the use of\n     AI. These laws and their regulations have been developed over\n     years through careful consideration and extensive stakeholder\n     input from consumers, industry, and advocates. And, in the\n     years ahead, additional matters--many unforeseeable today\n     given the rapidly evolving nature of this technology--are\n     likely to arise.\n       A bipartisan coalition of State Attorneys General\n     previously recommended that an appropriate federal framework\n     for AI governance should focus on ``high risk'' AI systems\n     and emphasize ``robust transparency, reliable testing and\n     assessment requirements, and after-the-fact enforcement.'' In\n     that letter, the coalition stated that State Attorneys\n     General should:\n\n     . . . have concurrent enforcement authority in any Federal\n     regulatory regime governing AI. Significantly, State AG\n     authority can enable more effective enforcement to redress\n     possible harms. Consumers already turn to state Attorneys\n     General offices to raise concerns and complaints, positioning\n     our offices as trusted intermediaries that can elevate\n     concerns and take action on smaller cases.\n\n       Rather than follow the recommendation from the bipartisan\n     coalition of State Attorneys General, the amendment added to\n     the reconciliation bill abdicates federal leadership and\n     mandates that all states abandon their leadership in this\n     area as well. This bill does not propose any regulatory\n     scheme to replace or supplement the laws enacted or currently\n     under consideration by the states, leaving Americans entirely\n     unprotected from the potential harms of AI. Moreover, this\n     bill purports to wipe away any state-level frameworks already\n     in place.\n       Imposing a broad moratorium on all state action while\n     Congress fails to act in this area is irresponsible and\n     deprives consumers of reasonable protections. State AGs have\n     stepped in to protect their citizens from a myriad of privacy\n     and social media harms after witnessing, over a period of\n     years. the fallout caused by tech companies' implementation\n     of new technology coupled with a woefully inadequate federal\n     response. In the face of Congressional inaction on the\n     emergence of real-world harms raised by the use of AI, states\n     are likely to be the forum for addressing such issues. This\n     bill would directly harm consumers, deprive them of rights\n     currently held in many states, and prevent State AGs from\n     fulfilling their mandate to protect consumers.\n       To the extent Congress is truly willing and able to wrestle\n     with the opportunities and challenges raised by the emergence\n     of AI, we stand ready to work with you and welcome federal\n     partnership along the lines recommended earlier. And we\n     acknowledge the uniquely federal and critical national\n     security issues at play and wholeheartedly agree that our\n     nation must be the AI superpower. This moratorium is the\n     opposite approach, however, neither respectful to states nor\n     responsible public policy. As such, we respectfully request\n     that Congress reject the AI moratorium language added to the\n     budget reconciliation bill.\n           Sincerely,\n         Phil Weiser, Colorado Attorney General; Jonathan\n           Skrmetti, Tennessee Attorney General; Gwen Tauiliili-\n           Langkilde, American Samoa Attorney General; Tim\n           Griffin, Arkansas Attorney General; William Tong,\n           Connecticut Attorney General; Brian Schwalb, District\n           of Columbia Attorney General; John M. Formella, New\n           Hampshire Attorney General; Charity Clark, Vermont\n           Attorney General; Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General;\n           Rob Bonta, California Attorney General.\n         Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General; Anne E.\n           Lopez, Hawaii Attorney General; Kwame Raoul, Illinois\n           Attorney General; Kris Kobach, Kansas Attorney General;\n           Aaron M. Frey, Maine Attorney General; Andrea Joy\n           Campbell, Massachusetts Attorney General; Keith\n           Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General; Todd Rokita,\n           Indiana Attorney General; Liz Murrill, Louisiana\n           Attorney General; Anthony G. Brown, Maryland Attorney\n           General.\n         Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General; Lynn Fitch,\n           Mississippi Attorney General; Aaron D. Ford, Nevada\n           Attorney General; Raul Torrez, New Mexico Attorney\n           General; Jeff Jackson, North Carolina Attorney General;\n           Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General; Dan Rayfield, Oregon\n           Attorney General; Peter F. Neronha, Rhode Island\n           Attorney General; Matthew J. Platkin, New Jersey\n           Attorney General; Letitia James, New York Attorney\n           General.\n         Drew H. Wrigley, North Dakota Attorney General; Gentner\n           Drummond, Oklahoma Attorney General; Dave Sunday,\n           Pennsylvania Attorney General; Alan Wilson, South\n           Carolina Attorney General; Marty Jackley, South Dakota\n           Attorney General; Derek Brown, Utah Attorney General;\n           Nick Brown, Washington Attorney General; Gordon C.\n           Rhea, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General; Jason S.\n           Miyares, Virginia Attorney General; Joshua L. Kaul,\n           Wisconsin Attorney General.\n\n  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this bill would affect hundreds--I am\nquoting now from this letter: ``This bill will affect hundreds of\nexisting and pending state laws passed and considered by both\nRepublican and Democratic state legislatures. Some existing laws have\nbeen on the books for many years.''\n  So these are attorneys general from a variety of States who basically\nknow the laws on their books, and they are basically saying, Don't do\nthis to us. Don't ever override our laws.\n  Mr. President, I would also like to ask unanimous consent to have\nprinted in the Record a letter from 17 Republican Governors also\nagainst this provision.\n  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in\nthe Record, as follows:\n                                                    June 27, 2025.\n     Hon. John Thune,\n     Majority Leader, Senate,\n     Washington, DC.\n     Hon. Mike Johnson,\n     Speaker, House of Representatives,\n     Washington, DC.\n       Dear Leader Thune and Speaker Johnson: President Trump's\n     One, Big, Beautiful Bill is a win for the American people,\n     cutting taxes, moving welfare recipients off the path to\n     dependency and onto the path to prosperity, growing the\n     economy, and helping secure the border.\n       While the legislation overall is very strong, there is one\n     small portion of it that threatens to undo all the work\n     states have\n\n[[Page S3636]]\n\n     done to protect our citizens from the misuse of artificial\n     intelligence. As Republican Governors, we are writing to\n     encourage congressional leadership to strip this provision\n     from the bill before it goes to President Trump's desk for\n     his signature.\n       In just the past year, states have led on smart regulations\n     of the AI industry that simultaneously protect consumers\n     while also encouraging this ever-developing and critical\n     sector. In Arkansas, for example, the Legislature created\n     basic copyright guidelines for generative AI, protected\n     Arkansans from the nonconsensual use of their likeness, and\n     prohibited the creation of sexually explicit AI images of\n     real people--especially children. Similarly, Utah law\n     requires disclosure if someone is interacting with AI and\n     creates other consumer protections. Other states have made or\n     are in the process of creating similar reforms--commonsense\n     changes that every state, and Congress, should get behind.\n       As it's currently drafted, though, this provision added by\n     Congress would prohibit these commonsense protections from\n     going into effect for ten years, instead waiting on some as-\n     yet-unwritten regulations to come from Congress.\n       AI is already deeply entrenched in American industry and\n     society; people will be at risk until basic rules ensuring\n     safety and fairness can go into effect. Over the next decade,\n     this novel technology will be used throughout our society,\n     for harm and good. It will significantly alter our\n     industries, jobs, and ways of life, and rebuild how we as a\n     people function in profound and fundamental ways. That\n     Congress is burying a provision that will strip the right of\n     any state to regulate this technology in any way--without a\n     thoughtful public debate--is the antithesis of what our\n     Founders envisioned.\n       We fully recognize that AI dominance is the next front in\n     industrial competition between the United States and\n     adversaries like Communist China. States have led on anti-\n     Communist Chinese action, banning Communist Chinese-\n     affiliated companies from owning farmland and property around\n     critical infrastructure and military bases. But America\n     should not sacrifice the health, safety, and prosperity of\n     its people in this fight. We must curb AI's worst excesses\n     while also encouraging its growth, which is exactly what\n     states have done through the creation of their own regulatory\n     frameworks.\n       As Republican Governors, we support the One, Big, Beautiful\n     Bill and President Trump's vision of American AI dominance,\n     but we cannot support a provision that takes away states'\n     powers to protect our citizens. Let states function as the\n     laboratories of democracy they were intended to be and allow\n     state leaders to protect our people.\n           Sincerely,\n         Governor Kay Ivey, State of Alabama; Governor Brian Kemp,\n           State of Georgia; Governor Jeff Landry, State of\n           Louisiana; Governor Jim Pillen, State of Nebraska;\n           Governor Mike Dunleavy, State of Alaska; Governor Brad\n           Little, State of Idaho; Governor Mike Kehoe, State of\n           Missouri; Governor Kelly Armstrong, State of North\n           Dakota.\n         Governor Sarah Sanders, State of Arkansas; Governor Kim\n           Reynolds, State of Iowa; Governor Greg Gianforte, State\n           of Montana; Governor Kevin Stitt, State of Oklahoma;\n           Governor Henry Dargan McMaster, State of South\n           Carolina; Governor Spencer Cox, State of Utah; Governor\n           Larry Rhoden, State of South Dakota; Governor Mark\n           Gordon, State of Wyoming; Governor Bill Lee, State of\n           Tennessee.\n\n  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, their letter I would like to read from\nis really about this point I was trying to make about fighting China. I\nmean, I thought we were here to be competitive against them, to\nbasically beat them in a race on innovation, just like we did with\nCHIPS and Science to try to move for the future.\n  But basically their letter says:\n\n       We fully recognize that AI is dominant in the next\n     industrial competition between the United States and\n     adversaries like Communist China. States have led anti-\n     communist China action banning Chinese-affiliated companies\n     from owning farmland and property critical for infrastructure\n     and military bases. But America should not sacrifice the\n     health and safety and prosperity of its people in this fight.\n     We must curb AI's worst excesses while also encouraging\n     growth, which is exactly what states have done through their\n     creation of their own regulatory framework.\n\n  So they are basically saying the States are on the frontlines of\nhelping to protect on AI.\n  Now, Mr. President, I have no idea why the President of the United\nStates has not protected the American people or the American military\nfrom the Chinese scams that are happening on TikTok. We would never let\nChina own ABC News and put out Chinese Communist propaganda on ABC\nNews, but we let them do that on TikTok.\n  This body and our colleagues said, No, stop that, and stop the\nChinese. And yet we still haven't stopped the Chinese. So now, here we\nare in this bill cutting out the States' abilities to fight Chinese AI\ncompanies like DeepSeek or Alibaba--and they have no interest in\nstopping the scammers from using their AI products to harm Americans.\nThey have none.\n  And if you think we are going to pass something here, I am always\nready to sign up to get legislation done, but that isn't going to\nhappen anytime soon. And so now you are telling these Governors, these\nattorneys general, yep, I am not even going to let you fight China\nbecause I am going to take that tool away from you. So clearly, I don't\nsupport this part of the legislation, and I appreciate my colleague\nfrom Tennessee and her attorney general working on this very important\nissue.\n  And finally, I come to the issue of spectrum. This is a very ill-\nconceived plan to auction off our precious spectrum. Such an auction\nwill fundamentally compromise our defense capabilities, while\nendangering aviation and important Federal capabilities like weather\nforecasting and scientific research. This bill would require an auction\nof 800 megahertz of spectrum critical to our military and civilian\ninfrastructure. It would compromise military radio frequencies and\nweather and other spectrum issues, most importantly, drone operations.\nAnd I know the Presiding Officer knows how much drones are now at the\nepicenter and forefront of warfare and is reshaping the battlefields\nacross the globe. So why would we do this?\n  Well, my colleague Senator Cruz is pushing for something that experts\nsay would risk military operations. Last Congress, we got the\nDepartment of Defense and the Department of Commerce to agree that we\nshould testbed the next generation of technology because we don't like\ninterference.\n  Now, I am sure most Americans sitting at home are thinking, What is\nshe talking about? Well, if you drive in a car and you have a radio\nstation and, all of a sudden, the radio station doesn't get its signal\nor has some interference, you know that there is an issue. The tower--\nnot big enough, not strong enough--this is the same.\n  This radio spectrum has been used by Department of Defense for secure\npurposes, very important secure purposes. Mr. President, think of the\nChinese balloon and the fact that we want to detect when a Chinese\nballoon is flying through our airspace. We want to be able to stop\npeople from spying on the United States of America. And yet, instead of\nbasically saying we are going to look at this military spectrum and\nmake sure that it continues to be secure, my colleague is suggesting to\nall of us that we sell that and basically allow, I believe, for what is\ngoing to be a good amount of interference without solving this problem\nfirst.\n  Why does that bother me? Because I think we live in a world where you\nare going to see more and more spectrum, more and more warfare based on\nsatellite and communication, and the landscape is changing. So I\ncertainly don't want our military preparedness to be affected.\n  Air Force leaders warned that spectrum bands are crucial to this\nradar operations, and I am not going to go into more about why, but I\nam just saying, just like you can't have four radio stations basically\ninterfering with each other, my colleagues want to allow the major\ntelcos, mostly AT&T and Verizon, who are so hungry to sell more,\nwhatever it is, $79.99 plans or $59.99 plans, they literally are going\nto give away national security just so they can sell more telephone\nplans.\n  In fact, I would ask them, what have you done to clean up the last\ndisaster that you had when the Chinese hacked you on Salt Typhoon? Now,\nthey didn't successfully hack the telecom company in my State because\nthey were smart enough to do all the preparatory work not to be hacked.\nBut these guys didn't do the work, and now, they are up here pushing\nour colleagues to say, give us more, give us more, give us more,\nwithout doing the homework required to figure out how to make sure our\nmilitary is protected.\n  But what is even more infuriating is they want the same spectrum from\nour airlines as well. They want to cause confusion between the spectrum\nof aviation and in this telecommunication. Last time the Trump\nadministration did this, there was a major, major debate, and the White\nHouse and the Biden administration had to come in and fix it.\n  It is all related to the altimeter on a plane. Again, the Presiding\nOfficer\n\n[[Page S3637]]\n\nknows this well. An altimeter helps tell the plane what altitude they\nare at and what to do. But if you have interference with that\naltimeter, as we just saw in this helicopter accident--we are pretty\nsure now that this accident between an American regional jet and an\nArmy helicopter, there were some altimeter issues, and that caused a\ndiscrepancy and a crash. So I am not for any interference with an\naviation altimeter. I am not for it.\n  But instead of figuring this out, working together--both commercial\nand defense--we are jamming into a bill the overriding of the defense\ninterests and saying, just give it to these two commercial bidders,\nmaybe more, who then will basically just feel empowered to sell more of\nthese telco plans.\n  Mr. President, our competitiveness is too important. Our\neffectiveness is too important. Collaboration and working together to\nsolve these problems is how the United States is going to succeed.\nBasically trying to pit each other against each other in these kind of\ntechnology issues is not going to help us win.\n  I have outlined many issues here, and I have outlined how you could\nfund Medicaid without basically doing what we are doing here. There is\nno reason, according to the Penn Wharton budget model and analysis,\nfamilies in the first 40 percent of earners are, on average, projected\nto experience losses in aftertax income and benefit transfers.\n  In other words, yes, extending the 2017 tax cuts does help some\nmiddle class families, and we would support that, but all the hits in\nother areas like health insurance mean they will actually lose money\noverall. The lowest 20 percent of income brackets are hit even harder.\nSo in this massive bill, it is those who can least afford it who are\ngoing to be hit the hardest.\n  We don't need the Trump inflation. We need to protect healthcare. We\nneed to make progress in America's competitiveness. But this is not the\nanswer, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against it.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.\n  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, President Trump's so-called Big Beautiful\nBill, now on the floor of the Senate, is the most dangerous piece of\nlegislation in the modern history of our country. It is a gift to the\nbillionaire class, while causing massive pain to low-income and\nworking-class Americans. Actually, though, I am wrong. This is not a\ngift to the billionaire class. They paid for it.\n  This bill is an absolute reflection of a corrupt campaign finance\nsystem which allows billionaires to buy elections. And when\nbillionaires spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars trying\nto elect a President or a Senator or a Member of Congress, they are not\nmaking that investment just for the fun of it; they want something in\nreturn. And this legislation--big time--is what they are getting in\nreturn.\n  So what is in this bill that they invested in? Well, if you are in\nthe top 1 percent, you and the class you represent will receive a $975\nbillion tax break--$975 billion tax break, at a time when the richest\npeople in this country have never, ever had it so good.\n  Further--this is really quite unbelievable--if you are among the\nwealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent--I am not talking about 1 percent; I\nam talking about the top two-tenths of 1 percent--you will be able to\npay zero taxes on your $30 million inheritance.\n  So all of you folks out there who are waiting to inherit at least $30\nmillion, today is a good day for you. Collectively, you will receive\napproximately $211 billion in tax breaks for the top two-tenths of 1\npercent. Congratulations, you hit the jackpot.\n  If you are a large corporation and you want to throw workers out on\nthe street and replace them with artificial intelligence, or maybe you\nwant to shift your profits to the Cayman Islands or other tax havens,\nyou are going to get a $918 billion tax break. Congratulations to the\nCEOs of large, profitable corporations.\n  While the rich and large corporations make out like bandits in this\nbill, what does it do for low-income and working families? Well, let me\nsay a few words on that.\n  If you are concerned about healthcare, which I suspect that everybody\nin the world is, this bill throws over 16 million people off the health\ninsurance they have--according to the Congressional Budget Office--by\ncutting Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act by over $1.1 trillion. In\nother words, the top 1 percent are getting a $975 billion tax break,\nand that is coming directly by throwing 16 million people off of the\nhealth insurance they have.\n  This bill, for the first time, forces millions of Medicaid\nrecipients, who make as little as $16,000 a year, to pay a $35\ncopayment every time they visit a doctor's office.\n  So what is the impact of all of that? You throw 16 million off\nhealthcare, you force people who don't have any money to pay a $35\ncopayment, so what is the impact of it? This is not my view. This is\nwhat the Yale School of Public Health and University of Pennsylvania\ndetermined based on a study that they did. This is the result--and it\nis almost so horrific, so grotesque that it is difficult to speak\nabout, but they estimate that if this bill goes through with all of\nthese cuts in healthcare, if 16 million people are thrown off the\ninsurance they have, over 50,000 Americans will die unnecessarily every\nyear--50,000 Americans will die unnecessarily in order to give tax\nbreaks to billionaires who don't need them. In other words, this bill\nis literally a death sentence for low-income and working-class people.\n  Further, if this legislation is enacted, rural hospitals all over the\ncountry--and I come from one of the most rural States in America. Rural\nhospitals are already struggling. But when you make massive cuts to\nMedicaid, many of them are going to shut down or not be able to provide\nthe level of services they do today. In other words, this bill would be\na disaster for rural America.\n  It would also make massive cuts to community health centers and\nnursing homes, which are very heavily dependent upon Medicaid funding.\n  The bottom line is that this legislation is the most significant\nattack on the healthcare needs of the American people in our country's\nhistory.\n  We already have, as everybody knows, a healthcare system which is\nbroken, which is dysfunctional. And instead of addressing it, instead\nof doing what every other major country I know does--guarantee\nhealthcare to all people--we are throwing 16 million people off the\nhealth insurance that they have.\n  But it is not just healthcare. The future of America rests with our\nchildren, and yet in a nation which now has the highest rate of\nchildhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, this bill wipes\nout nutrition assistance for millions of hungry kids in America.\n  We are literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids to give\ntax breaks to Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk and Mr. Zuckerberg and the other\nmultibillionaires.\n  If we understand that if we are going to compete effectively in the\nglobal economy we need to have the best education system in the world,\nthis bill makes $350 billion in cuts in education, with the result that\nworking-class kids will find it much harder to get the higher education\nthey need to succeed in life.\n  If you are concerned about the existential threat of climate change--\nand we are seeing heat waves right now all over the world--this bill\ndecimates investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy like\nwind and solar and moves us in exactly the wrong direction with regard\nto energy.\n  If you are concerned about our role in never-ending wars, this bill\nmakes a bad situation even worse by handing out another $150 billion to\nthe Pentagon, a 15-percent increase in an already bloated Pentagon\nbudget. We don't have enough money to feed hungry children. We don't\nhave enough money to make sure that people continue to have the\nhealthcare that they need. We don't have enough money to make sure the\nkids can get a decent education. But somehow the military-industrial\ncomplex is going to get another $150 billion, a 15-percent increase.\n  In my view, nobody in the Senate or the House should vote for this\nlegislation, and I applaud all of the Democrats for voting against it.\nAnd I want to congratulate two Republicans, Senator Paul and Senator\nTillis, for voting against it--for different reasons, by\n\n[[Page S3638]]\n\nthe way, than I have. But I do find it interesting, and it does tell us\nwhere we are as a nation today that when one of those Senators, Senator\nTillis, voted against it because he thought it was not a good bill for\nthe people of his home State, North Carolina, suddenly the President of\nthe United States went after him in a very, very vicious way. And,\ntoday, he announced that he will not be seeking reelection.\n  So it appears now that the Republican Party has really become a party\nof the cult of the individual. The only thing you have to do now, as a\nRepublican, is say: I agree with President Trump. I love President\nTrump. President Trump is right all of the time.\n  Hey, that is all you have to do now to be a good Republican.\n  There was a day when Republicans and Democrats understood that they\nwere elected by their constituents. Yes, you want to work with the\nPresident of your own party; nothing to do about that. But there was an\nunderstanding that you were also elected to represent your constituents\nand not simply pay homage and bow down to every wish and whim of the\nPresident.\n  During the vote-arama, I will be offering several amendments, which I\nhope will win support. No. 1, at a time when 22 percent of our Nation's\nseniors are trying to survive on less than $15,000 a year, my first\namendment would fundamentally improve their lives in two significant\nways. No. 1, it would cut the price of prescription drugs under\nMedicare in half by making sure that our Nation's seniors do not pay\nany more than Europeans or Canadians pay for the same exact drugs; and,\nNo. 2, with those savings, we are going to expand Medicare to cover\ndental, vision, and hearing. In other words, instead of throwing people\noff of healthcare, we are going to expand Medicare to provide a number\nof services that seniors desperately need and want.\n  Secondly, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, my\nsecond amendment would eliminate the $211 billion estate tax for the\ntop two-tenths of 1 percent that is included in this bill. The top 2\npercent, as I mentioned, get a $211 billion tax break. That is insane.\nWe are going to get rid of that.\n  And lastly, at a time when we spend more on the military than the\nnext nine nations combined, at a time when the Pentagon cannot account\nfor trillions of dollars in assets, we are going to end the provision\nthat allows the Pentagon to receive another $150 billion.\n  The bottom line is this country faces many crises: the high rate of\nchildhood poverty, kids going hungry, the education system in deep\ntrouble, the healthcare system completely broken. And in virtually\nevery single area, this bill takes us in precisely the wrong direction.\n  When the wealthiest people in this country have never ever had it so\ngood, it is totally insane to be offering them a trillion dollars in\ntax breaks so that we can cut healthcare, education, and nutrition.\n  This bill is not what the American people want, and I hope very much\nwe can defeat it.\n  Thank you very much, Mr. President.\n  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCORMICK). The Sergeant at Arms will\nrestore order in the Gallery.\n  The Democratic leader.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for coming to the\nfloor all day today. I thank them for speaking so fiercely and so\nclearly about what is at stake for the country. And the American people\ndeserve to see this debate. That is why we, last night, forced a\nreading of the bill.\n  Republicans don't want people to know what is in the bill. They want\nto hide it. They know it is not popular. We all know it is not popular.\nWe all know it is totally against what people want. But a small cabal\nof very wealthy people and hard MAGA people run that show, to the\ndetriment of the party itself and, of course, the American people.\n  So we forced a reading of the bill last night and allowed people to\ncatch up because the bill was just put on the floor right before the\nreading started--the amended bill.\n  So we are here today to continue to shine a light on how bad this\nbill is, and this debate will continue. Soon, we will turn to vote-\narama and bring amendment after amendment after amendment to the floor\nso Republicans can defend their billionaire tax cuts, so they can try\nto explain their massive cuts to Medicaid to people back home--why kids\nwho need healthcare shouldn't get it so there can be tax breaks for\nbillionaires; why middle-class families who have someone in a nursing\nhome who is now going to be removed from that nursing home because it\nis going to close, what they are going to do; and to try and sell to\nparents and kids why they are making unprecedented cuts to SNAP.\n  Taking food from hungry babies for a tax cut for wealthy people. What\nkind of world do these Republicans live in? It is a slanted world. It\nis really a corrupt world. Kids will get $5 a day to feed themselves.\nYou can't buy a dozen eggs for $5.\n  And then they are killing millions of good-paying jobs. It is\nestimated--and, by the way, the clean energy cuts are even worse.\nBefore this, it was estimated 850,000 jobs would be lost in America on\nclean energy alone, over a million jobs in healthcare. So 2 million\njobs, approximately, lost--at least 2 million lost--because of this\nbill. That could create a recession.\n  So this has been a long few days in the Senate, but the hardest\nchoices for Republicans are still in front of them because we know that\nso many of our colleagues on the other side aren't happy with this\nbill. Tillis is not an exception. There are many others who think the\nsame way he does. Well, they ought to vote their principles, their\nconscience, and what is good for their constituencies.\n  Our side is going to give our Republican colleagues a chance to do\nthe right thing in front of this Chamber and in front of this Nation.\nThe American people deserve to know exactly--exactly--what is happening\nright now in the U.S. Senate because, right now, Republicans are\nconcocting the ultimate rush job. They are trying to pull off a sneak\nattack on this Chamber and on the American people themselves.\n  The bill before the Senate is utter poison. Some Republicans are\ntrying to rush through a bill that they released less than 2 days ago,\nunder the cloak of darkness, written behind closed doors, molded in\norder to appease Donald Trump and the very special powerful interests.\n  Earlier today, my colleague from South Carolina came to the floor\nwith a pretty interesting looking floor chart, where he claimed that\nhis bill somehow reduced the debt by $500 billion. What a joke. The\nBudget chair, respectfully, needs to check his math because somehow\nLindsey Graham, chairman of the Budget Committee, said that his bill\nreduces the debt by $500 billion.\n  The Budget chair, respectfully, check your math, Chairman Graham,\nbecause not 1 hour ago, the JCT confirmed this bill does not reduce the\ndebt; it explodes it. It explodes it. That is what it does.\n  Here is what his chart should have looked like: $4.45 trillion\ndeficit explosion.\n  According to the JCT, the Republican bill explodes the debt by $4.5\ntrillion, as this chart, drawn slightly better than Lindsey's, shows.\n  For those keeping score at home, my colleague got his math wrong by a\nwhopping $4 trillion. All this--all this--just so billionaires are\nrewarded while millions lose their healthcare, a $4.5 trillion deficit\nexplosion.\n  And that is not just an abstract concept. What does that mean? The\naverage American will pay more to buy a home. The average American will\npay more to buy a car. The average American will pay more on their\ncredit card debt--on issue, after issue, after issue. Prices will go up\nbecause of this deficit because of taxes for the billionaires. That is\n$4.45 trillion, all so some people--wealthy people--God bless them.\nThey made a lot of money. OK. They don't need a tax break.\n  Let it be known that this bill is the death knell of the supposed\nparty of fiscal responsibility. We always knew that this was a sham,\nand now this bill ends the charade of Republicans caring about the debt\nfor all time coming. When they say they have to cut healthcare on any\nbill or food stamps on any bill because it reduces the deficit, we will\nknow it is utter hogwash\n\n[[Page S3639]]\n\nbecause of the $4.5 trillion they are doing now for tax breaks for the\nwealthy.\n  So Republicans want to move quickly. That is why we are here on the\nweekend. That is why they released a bill in the dead of the night--all\nbecause they want to hide the truth from the American people.\n  You know, it is hard to believe, my colleagues; this bill is worse--\neven worse--than any draft we have seen thus far. Every time the bill\ncomes to the floor--a new bill, a new amendment--the hard-right handful\nover on the Republican side: We are not voting for it unless you hurt\nkids more, you hurt people who need healthcare more, you hurt rural\nhospitals more, you hurt clean energy more.\n  And the Republican leadership folds and does it. And the handful of\nmore mainstream Republicans who know how bad this is right now haven't\nhad the backbone to oppose those changes. We hope they find it.\n  So this bill is worse on healthcare, worse on SNAP. It will kill\n900,000 good-paying jobs in clean energy. Folks, you don't like paying\nyour electricity bills, you will pay 10 percent more on your electric\nbills because of this ``Big Ugly Betrayal.''\n  It will also kill a million healthcare jobs. You put it all together,\nand there is no other way to put it; at the very last minute, Senate\nRepublicans made the bill more extreme to cater to the radicals in the\nHouse and the Senate. Republicans want to hide the truth so badly, in\nfact, that they are even ready to blow up the Senate rules to get it\ndone.\n  Senate Republicans are doing something that has never been done\nbefore in this Chamber--never, by Democrats or Republicans--using fake\nmath and budgetary hocus-pocus to make it seem like a gargantuan tax\nbreak for billionaires is going to cost virtually nothing. That is\ninsane. It is delusional.\n  Current policy baseline doesn't take into account that actual budget\nnumbers show these cuts expiring. So when you put them back up again,\nthe deficit increases. It is simple math--second grade math.\n  But our colleagues just--again, in a frenzy to help the\nbillionaires--are willing even to do that. Republicans know it. That is\nwhy they are squirming. You can see sort of the faces come on the\nfloor. They don't look very happy because they know how bad this stuff\nis.\n  They can use whatever budgetary gimmicks they want. Republicans can\nuse whatever budgetary gimmicks they want to make their math work on\npaper, but you can't paper over the real consequences of adding\ntrillions and trillions to the debt in one fell swoop.\n  CBO, nonpartisan--everyone who looks at this says it is going to\nincrease the deficit. Not the so-called party of deficit hawks. That is\nout the window.\n  So what is going to happen when they pass this bill, if they do--hope\nthey don't--our children and grandchildren are going to be faced with a\nlifetime of higher borrowing costs. As I said, mortgage costs, costs to\nbuy a car, costs for a credit card, harder to start a business--every\none of these will get worse.\n  And the economic ceiling of this country will close in on itself. The\nAmerican engine that has been the driver of American innovation and\ngrowth and optimism for so many generations will sputter and ossify\nwith this $4.45 trillion deficit explosion.\n  It is deeply irresponsible to future generations, to our children, to\nour grandchildren to pass this bill. That is not just Members on this\nside of the aisle saying it. Independent experts across the political\nspectrum--many of them very conservative Republicans but who are, at\nleast, honest about what they are doing--say it too. And plenty of\nRepublicans in both the House and Senate say it.\n  It remains to be seen if their words and their actions will align.\n  The question has to be asked: Why is this even happening? Why is this\nnightmare of a bill moving forward? Why are Republicans forcing our\ncountry down this ruinous road when they know the fiscal harms, when\nthey know this is a rush job?\n  Well, we know by now: tax cuts to billionaires and corporate special\ninterests. And not just another round but, in fact, they make them\npermanent.\n  Our children and our grandchildren are going to be saddled with these\ncuts so that a handful of billionaires get a big break while working\npeople lose their Medicaid, while hungry kids lose access to food\nfunding, while clean energy jobs that support so many Republican\ncommunities are taken away.\n  I say to my Republican friends: When that plant that makes batteries\nor wind or solar or when a person who is employing hundreds of people\nto put panels on people's roofs all fold and the people lose their\njobs, don't shrug your shoulders and say: I don't know why that\nhappened.\n  You made it happen with a nasty bill.\n  It just makes no sense. We need more energy, AI. Everyone says we\nneed more energy. And to take away the cheapest, quickest way to put\nmore electrons on the grid--solar--makes no sense, except we know\nDonald Trump has an irrational, infantile, mania against clean energy;\nso they all listen to him. It makes no sense.\n  This bill is sabotaging America. It is the sabotaging of America. It\nis antithetical to what the country needs. It is antithetical to what\nthe American people needed last fall. And our Republican colleagues\ndon't even want to tell the American people the truth. That is why\nDemocrats are here on the floor today, sounding the alarm, setting the\nrecord straight.\n  I also must say this: The way this bill is being passed so deeply\nviolates the spirit of the Senate. The majority forgets that this\nChamber is unlike any other institution in government. It is meant to\nfacilitate debate, careful consideration, sound judgment, honest\nnumbers.\n  We are supposed to resist the passions of the radical extreme. We are\nsupposed to hold the line against policies that would devastate our\ncountry. We are supposed to resist the gravitational pull of extremists\nlike Donald Trump who gets these little bugaboos in his head and wrecks\nAmerica because of it. And they all go along.\n  Senate Republicans are turning their back on the Senate's\nlongstanding tradition of debate deliberation. By rushing this bill, by\nupending the rule of the Chamber, by engaging in what amounts to\naccounting magic to hide the cost of their bill, Republicans, simply\nput, are accelerating the erosion of the Senate to the nth degree.\n  Senate Republicans are turning their back on what makes this\ninstitution great. More importantly, they are turning their back on the\npeople--their own constituents--in their own communities, people\nstruggling to afford going to see a doctor. You have a child with\ncancer, and you don't have healthcare? How can we put people in that\nposition?\n  Or families who have to choose between paying for groceries or paying\nfor prescription drug costs or families who are watching their\nelectricity bills going up and up; families who are paying more and\nmore costs--this bill--America, you don't want to pay higher costs? We\ndon't want you to on our side of the aisle. The Republicans are making\nit happen. You will pay more and more and more.\n  And about the future, they are not worried about our kids'\nlivelihood. They are not worried that kids won't be able to find good-\npaying jobs. Families are worried about the future of this country; but\nthe Republicans are not. And they are worried--Americans are worried\nabout the continued radicalization of leaders in government. And here\nis the shining example.\n  So the bill is the wrong answer for the American people. By every\nobjective standard, it is deeply irresponsible. It is not only a\nviolation of how the Senate is supposed to work, it is a violation of\nthe promises that Republicans and Donald Trump--when they campaigned--\nmade to the American people to look after their issues, not those at\nthe very top.\n  So I implore my Republican colleagues, there is still time. Abandon\nthese terrible policies. We will continue to have this debate in a real\nway, not jamming it through in the dark of night. My Democratic\ncolleagues and I will continue exposing the truth. And if Republicans\ngo down that road, we will continue to make sure today, tomorrow, next\nweek, next month, next year, that the American people know exactly what\nhappened here.\n\n[[Page S3640]]\n\n  I assure my Republican colleagues--I assure them this vote will not\nbe forgotten. Their betrayal will not go unanswered. This bill must not\nstand.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.\n  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank our leader for setting the record\nstraight.\n  It is really awful when you hear Republicans come down here and they\njust don't tell the truth about the bill that they are trying to pass.\nMaybe that is why they try to pass it in the middle of the night. They\nthink no one will really notice.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Does the Senator yield?\n  Ms. WARREN. I yield.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. All you have to do is look at their faces. They know\nwhat they are doing. They know it is unpopular. They know, as Senator\nMurkowski said, that they are all afraid. But it is time for them to\nstand up, isn't it?\n  Ms. WARREN. Yup. Yup.\n  Mr. President, on Friday I met Vivian. Vivian is an 11-year-old kid\nfrom Winston-Salem, NC. Vivian likes school. She likes her friends. She\nlikes reading Harry Potter. She is a lot like any other 11-year-old;\nbut for Vivian, going to school and being with her friends depends on\nMedicaid because Medicaid covers the cost of her wheelchair, for her\ntherapists, and for her health aide.\n  Right now, Republicans are trying to rip away healthcare from kids\nlike Vivian. The cruelty is truly breathtaking.\n  I asked for one Republican Senator--just one Republican Senator--who\nplans to vote for this bill to look into Vivi's eyes and tell her that\nher healthcare is just not a priority for this country.\n  You know, Mitch McConnell said to Republican Senators that he knew\nthey were getting calls about Medicaid but not to worry about people\nlosing their care because, according to Mitch McConnell, ``they will\nget over it.''\n  So I ask the Republican Senators to look at Vivi and Vivi's sisters\nand Vivi's mom and Vivi's dad and say--if Vivi loses her Medicaid and\nher wheelchair and her therapists and her health aide, tell all of them\nthat they will get over it, because here is the deal: Vivi won't get\nover it. Her family won't get over it. The people of North Carolina\nwon't get over it. None of us--Massachusetts, Idaho, Louisiana--none of\nus will get over it.\n  The cruelty here is off the charts, but the part that really burns is\nthe Republicans are trying to slash the healthcare that keeps kids like\nVivi alive so they can hand out more tax cuts for billionaires. It is\nbeyond cruel. It is obscene.\n  I am angry, and we should all be angry, because instead of playing at\nthe pool or at the park like a regular kid on summer break, Vivian had\nto come here to Washington to beg Senators not to cut her healthcare.\nIn a country as rich as ours, that shouldn't even be a question.\n  Now, I actually don't think that my Republican colleagues have lost\ntheir hearts. They have lost their spines. It seems that all they can\ndo now is bow down to Donald Trump and his billionaire donors. They\nwill bow down even if it means hurting families, community hospitals,\nand nursing homes in their own States.\n  Trump wants the Republicans in Congress to hand out giant checks to\nthe wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations, and the\nRepublican Senators are willing to do that even if it means kicking\nVivi to the curb.\n  Republicans know what they are doing. They know that this bill will\nhurt people. They know that this bill will kill people. And though it\nis hard to believe, they just look the other way. But on behalf of Vivi\nand millions of other kids and mommas and seniors and families that\nrely on the lifesaving care that Medicaid makes possible, my Republican\ncolleagues should grow a spine and stop this awful bill in its tracks.\n  If it wasn't bad enough that this bill is set to rip away healthcare\nfrom 17 million Americans to pay for tax giveaways for billionaires, it\nactually has a bunch of other filthy giveaways buried in it too.\n  Who wins if Republicans pass this ``Big Ugly Bill''? Billionaires;\nWall Street; Big Tech; Big Oil; the wealthiest Americans and the\nbiggest corporations.\n  Big Oil will get a special ``get out of paying your taxes'' card\nwhile millions of people lose their healthcare coverage. Billions of\ndollars for Big Oil, nothing for Vivi.\n  Meta--oh, man, Meta. There is a company that is really struggling.\nMeta will win $15 billion to incentivize them to do research in 2022,\n2023, and 2024.\n  Think about that. Unless a time machine comes with this, what Meta\ndoes in those 3 years is already done, but under this bill, Meta gets a\n$15 billion check on the day this bill passes simply for existing,\nwhile families lose access to their healthcare.\n  Wall Street wins big with a provision Republicans squeezed in that\nwould slash funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Giant\ncorporations want the opportunity to cheat American families again, so\nRepublicans are desperately trying to take the cop off the beat.\n  And who loses thanks to this big, ugly bill? Americans who can't\nafford healthcare. Families who need a little extra help putting food\non the table. Grandmas and grandpas in nursing homes. Little babies and\ntheir mommas.\n  If Republicans pass this bill, 17 million Americans will have their\nhealthcare ripped away. That number has kept growing as the Republicans\nkeep making more and more changes to the bill. For them, it is just a\nquestion of how many more Americans they can rip healthcare away from.\nThis bill would also make the biggest cut to food assistance for\nfamilies, kids, and veterans in American history.\n  Here is one to underscore: One out of every four nursing homes in\nAmerica would have to shut down under this bill.\n  You know, my Republican colleagues should just call a few seniors who\nare in nursing homes in their home States and just go over the plans\nfor where those folks are supposed to go next. What exactly do the\nRepublicans have in mind for them? Maybe call the daughter of someone\nwho is in one of those nursing homes and explain how she has to become\na full-time caregiver once this bill passes. Maybe call just a few of\nthe people whose lives you plan to tear apart.\n  Budgets are about our values, and Republicans have made their values\nclear: They are willing to throw millions of Americans under the bus so\nthat they can help out a handful of their billionaire buddies and giant\ncorporations. They should be ashamed.\n  Here is what Democrats believe. Democrats believe that no baby should\ngo hungry so that Mark Zuckerberg can buy another Hawaiian island.\nDemocrats believe that no person with a disability who needs a\nwheelchair or a home health aide to live independently should have to\ngive that up so that Jeff Bezos can buy a third yacht. Democrats\nbelieve that no grandma should be pushed out of her nursing home so\nthat Elon Musk can take a subsidized rocket ship ride to Mars.\n  It doesn't have to be this way. What if, instead of tax breaks for\nbillionaires, we make the rich pay their fair share? What if, instead\nof slashing healthcare for our kids, we make it possible for every\nAmerican to see a doctor when they are sick without breaking the bank?\nAnd what if, instead of giving Big Oil more giant handouts, we make\nuniversal childcare a reality for families all across this country?\n  We can tax the rich. Dammit, if Jeff Bezos can afford to rent Venice\nfor $50 million for his wedding, he can afford to pitch in his fair\nshare on taxes so the next kid has a chance to make it big and the kid\nafter that and the kid after that.\n  We can make life better for working people. We can make it easier,\nnot harder. We can lower costs for families, not jack them up even more\nlike this bill does. We can put families first, not billionaires and\nbillionaire corporations.\n  Democrats believe this. Democrats are willing to fight for this. We\nwill vote no on this awful bill. And for kids like Vivian, for seniors\nin nursing homes, for families who rely on home health aides, and for\nthe millions more Americans that this bill will hurt, I urge my\nRepublican colleagues to grow a spine and vote no.\n\n[[Page S3641]]\n\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, I want to\nthank my colleague, in particular for putting a human face on what this\nis all about for us on this side of the aisle--that small child, the\nsenior you were talking about. I am going to pick up on what you said,\nand I thank you for your leadership.\n  I am going to get into the specifics of this horrifying bill, in a\nmoment--all the details, the healthcare carnage, and the clean energy\nbloodbath that Republicans are dragging America toward. First, though,\nI want to spend just a few minutes on the state of the Senate and our\ndemocracy.\n  As of a few hours ago, the rules of the Senate are whatever\nRepublicans feel like when the day begins. It is democracy-defying,\nplain and simple.\n  The bill before the Senate is loaded--loaded--with fraudulent budget\nmath that hides trillions of dollars in handouts to corporations and\nthe ultrawealthy. It is a violation of the rules that used to be\nfollowed for years for the reconciliation process. It is a violation of\nthe Congressional Budget Act. It is a violation of common sense.\nRepublicans decided that none of that matters. So they have kind of\ngone nuclear to advance the bill.\n  Apparently, in this Chamber, if the Republican chair of the Budget\nCommittee says so, one plus one equals three. That is unsustainable. We\nare going to be a sicker, poorer, and weaker country if this bill\nbecomes law, and the Republicans have used this process, going nuclear,\nto pass it.\n  But these moves cut both ways, and there will be a lot of cleanup for\nDemocrats to handle down the road.\n  Now, in my time in public service, I have never seen a more\ndestructive, regressive, commonsense-defying bill debated in the\nSenate. This bill is going to determine the future of healthcare in\nAmerica. Millions of Americans will lose their health insurance if\nRepublicans pass the bill.\n  My colleagues seem to be ignoring, for example, the fact that rural\nhospitals are the anchor of life in much of America. This bill will\nsever that anchor and set rural healthcare adrift.\n  Here is how flawed the Republican plan is. The danger they are\ncausing for rural hospitals is so great that Republicans have had to\ncreate a rural hospital relief fund. It is a bandaid on an amputation.\n  I can tell you, one thing I know for sure is that only in Washington,\nDC, would you create a relief fund to address a problem that you\ncaused. How about you just not cut $1 trillion from Medicaid in the\nfirst place?\n  Now, I wanted to get a sense of what rural America thought of this\nlegislation. So last weekend, I held four townhalls in three Eastern\nOregon counties. It is as rural as it gets. Donald Trump carried these\ncounties overwhelmingly. One of them was Malheur County, where Donald\nTrump received more than 70 percent of the vote. This is where I held\nan open-to-all townhall meeting. It happens to have one of the highest\nMedicaid enrollments in the country. The message I heard was very clear\nand very loud: This bill will be a disaster for Malheur County on rural\nhealth.\n  Now, healthcare is a top employer in America. If these cuts go\nthrough, the healthcare workforce in rural areas of our Nation is going\nto be decimated. Nurses, doctors, and support staff will lose their\njobs, and rural economies are going to suffer.\n  Many of the Americans that will feel the consequences of this\nlegislation, today, walk an economic tightrope. Many have multiple\njobs.\n  Millions more Americans will lose their benefits, like home care and\nmental health, and services that already fall far short of what our\npeople expect. These are overwhelmingly kids, people with disabilities,\nseniors--all to pay for more tax cuts for multinational corporations\nand the ultrawealthy.\n  It is not just the cuts. It is also a whole lot more redtape, making\nit harder for people to get care.\n  At the center of the Republican Medicaid changes is a bunch of\nredtape thickets designed to entrap people into a never-ending maze of\nAI chatbots and phone trees that make it impossible for them to get the\ncoverage they need.\n  And even if you manage to get through all that bureaucratic water\ntorture and sign up for Medicaid, the Republican plan says: If you lose\nyour job, you lose your healthcare.\n  Why would the Congress want to inflict that on more people?\n  Nobody I could find wants these cuts, no matter their political\npersuasion, and I was in places that were bright red.\n  I am sure most of us can agree there is a real debate to be had on\nhow we can make healthcare more affordable and accessible, but this\nbill achieves none of that.\n  Let me mention seniors. My colleagues have touched on the elderly.\nTwo in three nursing home beds in America are covered by Medicaid. If\nRepublicans pass this into law, conditions will deteriorate. Seniors\nwill be forced out of their nursing homes or forced to move in with a\nfamily that doesn't have the necessary skills to care for their aging\nparents or grandparents. Nursing homes would be forced to shut their\ndoors as a result of these cuts, during a time when States are in\ndesperate need of more nursing home options, not fewer.\n  The bill also repeals nursing home safety standards. That is going to\nmean fewer nurses in nursing homes. You would think that would be a\nconcern of Republicans in the Trump administration.\n  But when the Finance Committee was considering the nomination of CMS\nAdministrator Mehmet Oz, he said:\n\n       I believe we can provide quality of care equivalent to\n     having a nurse in that nursing home using tools and\n     technologies.\n\n  Dr. Oz was apparently talking about AI, and I said: You are for\ncutting nurses. What is going to happen when an 85-year-old woman has\nto go to the bathroom in the middle of the night and needs some help?\n  He had no answers. But he is still being a big booster on artificial\nintelligence.\n  I am deeply troubled about what the Trump administration has in store\nfor America's seniors. That is on top of the fact that the home-based\ncare that most seniors prefer will be one of the first benefits States\nare forced to cut because it is optional now rather than mandatory.\n  Hundreds of thousands of seniors are going to see a premium increase\nof about $200 a month.\n  The bill also applies the worst forms of corporate redtape to the\nAffordable Care Act: shorter enrollment periods, more verification\nforms, more hoops, more bureaucracy, more redtape for Americans who\njust want affordable healthcare.\n  And the healthcare carnage may get worse with the Republican\namendments coming up. It is my understanding that they are going to\noffer an amendment that would lower the Federal Medicaid match for new\nenrollees in what is known as the Medicaid expansion. That was a key\npart of the Affordable Care Act, which delivered affordable healthcare\nto roughly 21 million Americans last year.\n  If this amendment is adopted, taken together with the other awful\npolicies in the bill, it would amount to repealing the Affordable Care\nAct and making good on the 15-year Republican crusade to dismantle that\nlaw.\n  Millions more working Americans are going to lose their health\ninsurance, and it would break a promise to the 41 States that have\nexpanded Medicaid, many of them red States.\n  These healthcare cuts aren't just going to be felt by Americans with\nMedicaid. Those who buy health insurance on their own are going to be\nsimilarly hit. Emergency room wait times are going to skyrocket, and\npremiums will spike.\n  Families will be one lost job or financial calamity away from being\ntossed onto a safety net that has rips and tears everywhere you look.\nSo many are going to fall between the cracks.\n  I also wanted to touch on another horrendous provision on healthcare\nburied in the bill: the defunding of the Planned Parenthood program.\nAnd they are doing it in a way that is essentially a backdoor,\nnationwide abortion ban.\n  This provision is going to strip clinics of their funding and make it\nimpossible for them to provide lifesaving healthcare, cancer screening,\nand annual exams. All of that will disappear for the people who rely on\nthese clinics for basic care.\n\n[[Page S3642]]\n\n  The healthcare cuts are getting a big focus with myself and\ncolleagues because of the challenge for so many communities, but there\nis something else that is absolutely imperative; that is, the clean\nenergy bloodbath, and it certainly deserves attention.\n  In the middle of the night Friday into Saturday, the bill that was\nalready a disaster for clean energy got much, much, much worse. What\nRepublicans have on offer doesn't just repeal the tax credits I wrote\nfor wind and solar energy in the Finance Committee; now we have an\nactual massacre on our hands.\n  This Republican plan actually taxes wind and solar--a new tax on the\ncheapest and easiest ways to get new energy to the grid. At the same\ntime, somebody tucked into the bill a brand new tax break for coal. So\nhere we are, 2025, and the Senate is about to pass a bill that taxes\nwind and solar while subsidizing coal. It is so backward, it leaves you\nslack-jawed.\n  When you look at this bill, it is awfully clear that the Republican\ngoal is to destroy key sources of clean energy in America. It is a\ndeath sentence for the wind and solar industries in our country, a\ntotal abandonment of hundreds of thousands of workers who are about to\nlose their jobs as a direct result of the bill.\n  The head of the North America's Building Trades Unions that\nrepresents millions of construction workers issued a stunning statement\non the bill yesterday. I will read a few select lines from the\nstatement. He said it is ``the biggest job-killing bill in the history\nof the country,'' is how he described the Republican plan; ``staggering\nand unfathomable job loss;'' a threat to ``an estimated 1.75 million\nconstruction [workers].'' This union leader said it was ``the\nequivalent of terminating 1,000 Keystone XL pipelines'' and that it was\n``another lifeline and competitive advantage to China in the race for\nglobal energy dominance.'' He also said that ``critical infrastructure\nprojects [will be] `sacrificed at the altar of ideology.'' Those are\nall direct quotes.\n  Hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy investments, under\nthe Republican plan, will simply disappear--not government subsidies or\nhandouts; these are private sector investments we will not have. Even\nworse, this is a guaranteed way to hike utility bills for families and\nbusinesses of all sizes in every nook and cranny of America.\n  I have never seen this kind of economic self-sabotage. The demand for\nenergy booms right now. Even the heads of companies involved in fossil\nfuels are saying to me and other Members of Congress: We need solar\nquickly to get more electrons to the grid. But Republicans don't want\nto listen, because this plan risks plunging us into an energy crisis.\nIt would be a disaster and a total surrender to China on clean energy\nmanufacturing.\n  It is clear as a sunny day that all the talk from Donald Trump and\nRepublicans about American energy dominance was just a fraud, nothing\nbut a hollow campaign slogan.\n  I will close with this: There is no question in my mind that the\nAmerican people went to the polls in 2024 to vote for cheaper\ngroceries, cheaper utilities, and cheaper gas. They didn't vote to kick\n16 million people off their healthcare so Republicans can give more tax\nbreaks to billionaires and corporations. They didn't vote for an energy\ncrisis that benefits nobody except Big Oil investors.\n  There is a real cost-of-living crisis facing American families right\nnow, and this Senate ought to be focused on finding ways to lower drug\nprices, for example, expand access to quality and affordable\nhealthcare, and bring down the cost of living. Instead, Republicans are\nusing every ounce of their power to jam through another round of tax\nbreaks for those at the very top, and they are doing it on the backs of\neverybody else.\n  There are serious challenges ahead, and there is going to be a\nserious mess to clean up, but until then, countless Americans will\nneedlessly suffer and die as a direct result of losing their healthcare\nunder this legislation.\n  I don't believe the American people are going to forget, and this\nside of the aisle will make certain that this topic is something that\nis dealt with again and again until the American people finally get a\nfair shake.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.\n  Mr. SCHATZ. The Presiding Officer is a distinguished businessman. He\nunderstands capital flows. He understands investment. There are a lot\nof people in this Chamber and across the country who, on a\nnonidealogical basis, want a consistent tax code so that businesses can\ninvest with certainty and predictability.\n  So let's look at some of the numbers here in terms of the impact of\nthis bill. This bill will kill 300,000 jobs in wind and solar per year.\nWe are going to lose out on $450 billion in capital as thousands of\nprojects go under. And because of that, we are going to generate about\n500 gigawatts less energy in the next decade.\n  Now, there was a time--and I lived through it as a politician--there\nwas a time when people who wanted to take climate action had to argue\nfor that climate action because it is a planetary emergency, and there\nwere tradeoffs. And people on the other side said: Look, as we try to\ntake action to deal with this planetary crisis, we can't create\nshortages. We can't increase prices. We can't impede economic progress.\n  All of that has flipped. This bill will create shortages. This bill\nwill impede economic progress. This bill will increase prices.\n  The 500 gigawatts less energy in the next decade is pretty much\nexactly the amount of energy that we are going to need to meet rising\ndemand. We are going to have energy shortages as a result of this\nlegislation.\n  And you don't have to love clean energy or be an environmentalist--\nand I love clean energy, and I am an environmentalist. But you don't\nhave to care about the climate. I think you should. You don't have to\ncare about the climate to understand that this is a basic question of\nsupply and demand. Energy demand is soaring for the first time in\ndecades largely--not exclusively but largely--because of AI data\ncenters. And our best chance of meeting it in the next few years is\nthrough wind and solar, not oil and gas. Even nuclear and geothermal\nare going to take a while.\n\n  That is not just a political talking point or preference of mine. It\nis just a fact that gas turbines are stuck in a yearslong backlog. It\nis also a fact that 80 percent of the new capacity on the grid last\nyear came from solar and storage. It is growing; it is cheap; and it\nworks. And there are hundreds more projects that are in the pipeline\nwaiting to be hooked up.\n  So the idea that we are going to kill the only energy--the only\nenergy--that can be brought online in the short run the very same week\nthat half the country was melting in a record heat wave which left tens\nof thousands of people without power is beyond absurd.\n  Let's talk about how this bill does all of this damage. Specifically,\nit creates an impossible deadline for projects to be operational in\norder to claim the clean energy tax credits.\n  Remember, these clean energy tax credits are Federal law. They are on\nthe books. So when you have a Federal statute, it is not unreasonable\nas an investor to say: Look, I have got this tax credit. I am going to\nget x percent back from my initial investment. And you do the pro\nforma; you do the underwriting; and you figure out that the thing\npencils out.\n  And now what they are saying is that you have got to be operational\nin 60 days. If anyone has even built a deck in their front yard or\ntried to do an extension, nothing gets built in 60 days, certainly not\na clean energy project.\n  And it has to be placed in service. What does ``placed in service''\nmean? It means not only do you have to have the thing built, you have\nto have a power purchase agreement through your public service\ncommission or public utilities commission. You have to have a deal in\nplace in the next 60 days after enactment or you get nothing.\n  So imagine you are a company investing in a solar or battery storage\nproject. You have already put money down. You have secured land and a\npower purchase agreement, and you are working on permits. And when you\nstarted the project, the Tax Code said you could claim a credit to\nclaim the upfront costs. Now, unless you are fully operational, you are\nout to luck.\n  On average, a project takes 4 years to go through the full process.\nSo even if you have already started that progress, you now have very,\nvery little time to get it done.\n\n[[Page S3643]]\n\n  We are going to strand hundreds of billions of dollars in capital.\nAnd so the impact on price is going to be crazy. The impact on jobs is\ngoing to be crazy. But the impact on America as an investable\nproposition is the most dangerous part of this.\n  I don't know that we have ever, through Federal law, made a big\nsubsidy, made a big bet on a certain industry, and then halfway through\nthat process said: Never mind. We didn't mean that. You are stuck.\n  According to the Edison Electric Institute--and, by the way, I can\nguarantee you, this is the first and maybe last time I will ever, ever\nquote the Edison Electric Institute--that will cost people, not\ncompanies but people, ratepayers, $60 billion in this decade alone.\nYour electric bills are about to go up.\n  A representative of a solar company in Hawaii put it this way:\n\n       It is really unclear in the current version of the bill\n     what the renewable energy industry even looks like if it were\n     passed today.\n\n  An owner of a solar company in Montana worried that the credits\ndisappearing would force him to lay off half of his workers.\n  He says:\n\n       Montana is deeply red, but it's also a very practical\n     place. And so green energy renewables became a taboo phrase\n     somehow.\n       The practical energy needs are undeniable, and so if we can\n     get past our disagreements about the phraseology and realize\n     that it's electrons, watts . . . amps. And it's all cheaper.\n\n  A representative of a wind turbine company in Colorado said:\n\n       I don't look at what we do as green or blue or red. An\n     electron doesn't have a color.\n\n  That is the point. Electrons don't have a color. Wanting cheap,\nabundant energy is not woke. Wanting a liveable planet today and for\nfuture generations is not radical. And wanting reliable power and to\navoid blackouts and brownouts is not a leftist project.\n  But even if you set all of that aside for a minute, the States that\nhave benefited the most from these investments are Republican States.\nAccording to estimates, nearly three-quarters of clean energy\nmanufacturing facilities are located in Republican States.\n  It means that Republicans are going to pay more for energy. It means\nRepublicans will lose jobs in clean energy because of a Republican\nbill. It means Republicans are going to have more blackouts in their\nhomes and businesses.\n  Gutting clean energy is not somehow owning the libs.\n  And at least some Republicans in the Senate and House understand\nthat, even if their votes have not manifested to say otherwise.\n  Here is a letter from 21 House Republicans earlier this year.\n\n       As our conference has long believed, an all-of-the-above\n     energy approach, combined with a robust advanced\n     manufacturing sector, will help support the United States'\n     position as a global energy leader.\n       Countless American companies are utilizing sector-wide\n     energy tax credits--many of which have enjoyed broad support\n     in Congress--to make major investments in domestic energy\n     production and infrastructure for traditional and renewable\n     sources alike.\n\n  And it goes on:\n  As energy demand continues to skyrocket, any modifications that\ninhibit our ability to deploy new energy production risk sparking an\nenergy crisis--\n  ``[R]isks sparking an energy crisis.'' Twenty-one House Republicans\nare worried about an energy crisis imposed by the Republican Congress.\n  It goes on:\n\n       This is especially true for energy credits with direct\n     passthrough benefit to ratepayers, where such repeals would\n     increase utility bills the very next day.\n\n  ``[W]ould increase utility bills the very next day.''\n  This is not me, progressive Senator from the State of Hawaii who has\nmade a career out of fighting climate change. This is 21 House\nRepublicans saying: We are going to create a crisis here. Maybe we\nshouldn't pass this thing. A lot of this stuff benefits us.\n  If we are all out here talking about ``all of the above,'' why are we\ncutting off our nose to spite our face? Just because someone wants a\ntalking point? Like, people are literally going to lose their jobs\nimmediately upon enactment. America is going to become a very\nchallenging place to make major investments in immediately upon\nenactment.\n  The AI industry may move abroad immediately upon enactment. And\nprices will go up pretty much right away, as well.\n\n  A group of 175 mayors and local leaders wrote:\n\n       For the first time, State and local governments, as well as\n     essential nonprofit community organizations--such as houses\n     of worship, hospitals, and schools--can access the same clean\n     energy tax credits as the private sector through elective\n     pay. This has led to major projects in our communities, like\n     solar installations for town halls, alternative fueling\n     infrastructure, and charging stations for local government\n     fleets.\n       After one year of direct pay implementation, over 1,200\n     organizations, including 500 State and local governments, are\n     already accessing these incentives. We are excited about\n     these projects and the benefits that they will bring to our\n     communities. However, as local leaders, we are concerned that\n     repealing these tax credits would create economic uncertainty\n     in our communities, as it would prevent us from accessing\n     those important benefits.\n\n  You know, I grew up to understand Republicans. Look, I didn't grow up\nas a Republican, but I did understand Republicans were for avoiding\nunintended consequences. Republicans were against radical change too\nquickly. Republicans wanted a solid business environment that people\ncould rely upon.\n  This is literally none of that. This is ideology manifesting itself\nas energy policy.\n  And what is going to happen is people are going to lose their jobs\nand pay tons more for electricity.\n  The Building Trades Unions called this bill ``the biggest job-killing\nbill in the history of this country.'' And they go on:\n\n       Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than\n     1,000 Keystone XL Pipeline projects.\n\n  I have been here for a while. Keystone XL was a big deal to our\nfriends in labor. I had some very tough conversations with my friends\nin labor about how important that project was to them and how it was in\ntension with some of our climate goals. But listen to what they say:\n\n       It is the equivalent of terminating more than 1,000\n     Keystone XL Pipeline projects.\n\n  These guys are not me or Jeff Merkley or Eddie Markey or Sheldon\nWhitehouse or Martin Heinrich or Representative Ocasio-Cortez or any\nclimate advocate. This is the Building Trades Unions. They are saying\nthis is the biggest job killer, perhaps, in American history.\n  We actually don't have to do this. The impetus behind this bill was\nessentially border spending and preventing the Trump tax cuts from\nexpiring. And then a bunch of stuff got added on because that is what\nhappens.\n  We were there for our own version of this--our own BBB, our own Build\nBack Better--and everybody in your party piles on with something new.\nThen, the thing becomes a really challenging thing to pass because\neverybody has their hobbyhorse. And somebody's hobbyhorse is not just\nto have an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but to go out of your way\nto kill clean energy.\n  It doesn't matter that it is going to raise prices. It doesn't matter\nthat it is going to kill jobs. People at all levels in the public and\nprivate sectors, across the political spectrum, are all saying the same\nthing, which is: This is a bad bill for regular people, for the\neconomy, and for the planet.\n  One of the great things about our climate bill was that it made what\nwas good for the planet also good for the economy. Clean energy became\nimminently profitable for businesses and widely accessible to\nconsumers. And we made a choice there because some in our party didn't\nlike the basic premise. They were attached to the idea of personal,\npolitical, and economic sacrifice because the planet is in peril.\n  And I understand that instinct. I understand that instinct.\n  But we paved a new path, and we decided--look--there is enough\ntechnology out there. There are abundant energy sources out there that\nwe can actually solve our planetary crisis and create jobs and lower\nprices. And we can do it in such a way that blue States and red States,\nurban, rural, suburban all benefit.\n  Republicans are on the verge of undoing all of that, even though it\nwill hurt their constituents. In doing so, they will virtually\nguarantee China's dominance in clean energy, for decades to come,\nbecause if you are China, you\n\n[[Page S3644]]\n\ncannot believe your luck. Your biggest competitor is willingly\nforfeiting the fight over who controls the energy technologies of the\nfuture because Donald Trump is too busy trying to get us back to the\npreindustrial age.\n  This is the worst piece of legislation for the planet in the history\nof our country, and it is not even close. Republicans are effectively\ncodifying Big Oil's wish list into law without exception. They are\nkilling clean energy. They are subsidizing coal. They are dramatically\nexpanding oil and gas leasing. They are purposefully jacking up energy\nprices and creating shortages--and creating shortages. And for what?\nPartially, it is to find enough savings to funnel tens, if not\nhundreds, of thousands of dollars into the pockets of individual\nbillionaires.\n  But even kicking more than 16 million people off of healthcare\ncoverage, denying food to the poor, and adding almost $5 trillion to\nthe national debt was not enough. People voted for Donald Trump for all\nsorts of reasons. But no one voted for higher energy bills. No one\nvoted for more frequent blackouts and brownouts and dirtier air or\nwater. No one, whether you are a Democrat or Republican or Independent,\nwants that.\n  I want to be clear. This fight is far from over. This fight over this\nbill is far from over. But even if this bill passes, it will set us\nback. But the fight for the planet is bigger than any one bill or vote,\nand that includes the big climate bill that we passed in the previous\nadministration. And as any movement that has successfully mobilized and\nmade changes knows, progress is not linear. Progress always has\nsetbacks and frustrations, and progress is not assured.\n  States like Hawaii will continue to do everything that they can to\nprotect our environment, and the rest of the world will move on without\nus because doing nothing in the face of this worsening crisis is simply\nnot an option.\n  Make no mistake, what Congress is doing today will cost all of us in\nthe years and decades to come.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today--and I will confess, I\nrise today a bit angry about this bill--this bill cooked up in back\nrooms, dropped at midnight, cloaked in fake numbers, with huge handouts\nto big Republican donors. It loots our country for some of the least\ndeserving people you could imagine.\n  When I first got here, this Chamber filled me with awe and\nwonderment. Our leader, Harry Reid, frequently called me his happiest\nSenator, such was the awe and wonderment that I felt here.\n  Today, I feel disgust. This piece of legislation is corrupt. This\npiece of legislation is crooked. This piece of legislation is a rotten\nracket. This place feels to me today like a crime scene. Get some of\nthat yellow tape and put it around this Chamber. The midnight transfer\nof wealth in this bill is disgusting.\n  There is a backdrop here. The backdrop here is the wealth inequality\nin our country already, in which the wealthiest 1 percent of our\npopulation owns 30 percent of the wealth and the poorest half of our\npopulation, together, only own 3 percent of the wealth--the top 1\npercent, a third of the wealth; the bottom half of the population by\nincome, 3 percent of the wealth.\n  And against that backdrop, this bill transfers wealth from middle-\nclass families to giant corporations, billionaires, and\nmegabillionaires. And it transfers wealth from our children and\ngrandchildren to present-day billionaires by adding $5 trillion to the\ndebt limit to run up the debt of the country to fund the tax giveaways\nto these special interests and wealthy billionaires.\n  How do they do that? They take away healthcare from 16 million\nAmericans and give huge tax breaks to billionaires.\n  Most families have someone sit down once a month and go through the\nbills, and you try to figure out what bills you can pay. You may not\npay the whole insurance bill; you may just pay the minimum. You may not\npay your whole credit card bill; you may just pay the minimum. You are\naware exactly how much money you have because you need to make those\npayments. That is kitchen-table world.\n  Billionaire world is different. You have a family office. You never\nsee bills. You don't even know how much money you have, not even to the\nnearest $100,000. And you don't care because you have more than you\ncould ever spend in your life.\n  You could pay taxes, like regular people, but there is something\nabout your acquisition of wealth that can't stop. So you won't pay\ntaxes like a normal person. You demand special treatment. You pay less\nof a tax rate than a firefighter, for God's sake. And that is not\nenough for you?\n  Now you come here to this Senate floor wanting even more favors. You\nalready don't know how much money you have. You could pay regular\ntaxes, and it wouldn't take a day from sunning on your private island,\na day from cruising in your private yacht, a jet trip on your private\njet, a ski trip to your private chalet. Nothing in your life would\nchange if you had to pay taxes like a regular person, but you just\ndon't want to.\n  And the third is--I should add that, on the tax breaks, a lot of it\ngoes to corporations. This bill doesn't just give big tax breaks to big\ncorporations; it gives big tax breaks to big corporations that move\njobs and investment offshore, away from America. And it just doesn't\ngive tax breaks to corporations that move jobs and investment offshore,\naway from America. It gives tax breaks for doing that. It gives tax\nbreaks for offshoring American jobs and offshoring American investment.\n  It is the world's worst tax policy. It takes an already-corrupted Tax\nCode and bends it even further in the favor of megabillionaires and big\noffshore corporations.\n  And last, what does this bill do? It causes this transfer of wealth\nfrom regular people to the wealthy. It raises your costs to raise their\nprofits.\n  I am here to talk about one way that happens. Because of this bill,\nyour electric bills will go up. The people behind this bill are\ncounting on you not to know how that works. So I am going to take a\nminute here, and I am going to tell you how that works.\n  There are some rules for the grid about how this works. Generators\nwho want to sell power to the grid put in a bid, and they give a price\nin which they will sell their electricity. You can imagine on this\ngraph that each of these little hash marks is a different generation\nfacility, and each has made a bid at its best price. Once it has the\nstack of bids, the grid manager, as the load comes onto the grid,\ndispatches the cheapest generators first and then goes up the stack to\nthe more and more expensive ones. As demand rises, the costs go up. The\nlast one that is called on--the most expensive one that is called on--\nsets the price for the whole grid, and this last one, the one that is\nthe price setter on the grid, almost always is a fossil fuel plant, OK?\nIt is almost always a fossil fuel plant.\n\n  So, if you look at this graph, you will see here that this measures\nthe price that is charged to put those electrons on the grid for\nconsumers, and this is the energy demand, how much consumers are\nasking. What does the grid need to supply?\n  If you look at the top line, this is the world without renewables.\nThis is an all fossil fuel system, let's say, a baseload nuke. OK.\nThrow that in. As the demand goes up, the prices go up because more and\nmore of these generators have to come online.\n  Eventually, let's say you get to this point, where you have this much\nload on the grid and you have this much supply, and the price is set by\nthat generator.\n  That is the world without clean energy. Now you add clean energy. You\nadd renewables to this equation. What do we know about the renewables?\nThey are almost always cheaper. They are almost never the price setter.\nSo they fill in down here, and they fill in below the price of the\nfossil fuel plant. So if you have load requirement X and you live in\n``fossil fuel only'' world, you are going to be paying that price for\nenergy on the grid--all of it--because it is set by that price setter\ngenerator. But if you filled in with renewables, then you are down here\nfor price for that much load. You are saving huge amounts of money. The\ngrid is way more efficient with renewables in the mix.\n  By the time you get to the same price that you had here for load X,\nfor fossil fuel, you are all the way out\n\n[[Page S3645]]\n\nhere. You have all of this extra load served before you raise that\nprice. That is the theory. That is how the system works.\n  Let's see how clean energy fits in this specific area. Let's look at\nTexas.\n  Oh, by the way, last year, 95 percent of the power that came on the\ngrid that filled in here was clean energy. If this bill kills clean\nenergy growth, which is its intention, then it is going to kill off the\npower source that provided 95 percent of what was added to the grid\nlast year. It is going to be a big, big hit.\n  So let's look at the Texas grid, which is easy to talk about because\nit is a stand-alone grid. Somebody just did a study of the Texas grid,\nand they found that with renewables--and Texas is 30 percent\nrenewables, OK? So we are in the ``with renewable'' situation. With\nrenewables, the average price last August was $39 per megawatt hour.\nThis was $39. Then they calculated what happened if you backed out all\nthe solar that had been added. If it weren't for the solar driving this\nprice down, instead of $39 per megawatt hour, it would have been\nsomewhere between $55 and $90 per megawatt hour--a minimum $25\ndifferential, maybe more than twice the cost.\n  The punch line:\n\n       Had there been no growth in solar energy between 2018 and\n     2024, wholesale electric prices in `24 would have been at\n     least 40 percent higher.\n\n  Without the clean energy growth of that 95 percent of supply that\ncame out of the grid that was clean energy last year, electricity\nprices would have been 40 percent higher. And where would that 40\npercent have gone? It would have gone into the pockets of the fossil\nfuel industry that was setting that price as everybody had to pay more\nand more and more.\n  So when you see the fossil fuel industry come here and take this shot\nat its clean energy competition in this bill, after having flooded that\nside with political money, they are going to make a fortune off of\nthis, and consumers--consumers--will pay. That is how this bill robs\nyou. It puts you back onto the fossil fuel side of that curve, not onto\nthe clean energy added part of the curve, which lowers prices so\ndramatically.\n  The report concluded:\n\n       This isn't speculation or modeling; it is what actually\n     happened in one of America's largest electricity markets.\n\n  By the way, while the fossil fuel polluters are out trying to damage\ntheir competition by using the power of government and the influence of\ntheir dark money operation to do so, they are also damaging America's\ncompetitiveness against China.\n  China has already put in 25 times the solar that we are putting in\nonto their grid. That gives them huge advantages as they construct\nsolar panels, design solar technologies, and offer that to the rest of\nthe world.\n  We are in a world market for solar technology just like we are in a\nworld market for electric vehicles. The fossil fuel industry's desire\nto destroy the American solar market and to destroy the American\nelectric vehicle market is about as unpatriotic as you can get because\nit is taking these two technologies and saying: Go for it, China. We\nare out. We are out. Have the entire international market for solar and\nfor energy. We are not going to compete. We are going to load up our\npeople with new taxes. We are going to tear away the subsidies.\n\n  By the way, the fossil fuel industry that is telling you this--they\nare the recipients of the biggest subsidy in world history. They get\n$700 billion a year in the United States alone from being allowed to\npollute for free. It violates market economics to pollute for free.\nMilton Friedman, the most conservative economist, will tell you it is\nnot proper market theory. When somebody is polluting for free, the cost\nof the pollution should be in the price of the product.\n  So they already benefit. The fossil fuel industry already benefits\nfrom the biggest subsidy in world history--$700 billion with a ``b''--\n$700 billion every single year to compete unfairly against clean\nenergy. On top of that, they want to rip away the investments that have\nbeen made, and they want to put a new tax on clean energy, and they\nwant to drive consumer prices back up to their fossil fuel model.\n  There are some really big losers in this big loser of a bill. For\nanybody who cares about adding $5 trillion to our national debt, that\nis a big loss. It comes through in interest rates for people with car\nloans and home loans. Healthcare--16 million people are getting chucked\noff their healthcare. Hospitals and nursing homes are facing\nreceiverships as their revenues dry up from a nearly trillion-dollar\nhit to their revenue streams.\n  Taxpayers are getting clobbered by an already corrupt Tax Code that\nthis makes even worse, for the individuals benefiting the most from the\ncorruption of the Tax Code and who are the least deserving of our\nsolicitude and who are the most able to pay.\n  I promise you there are people who will not know they even got this\n$300,000 individual billionaire benefit. Because they are so rich\nalready, it won't even count.\n  On the flip side of the coin, if they had to pay taxes like a normal\nAmerican, they wouldn't even notice that either. They would still be\nable to sun on their islands, cruise on their yachts, ski at their\nchalets, and jet on their jets. Yet we are breaking the bank to the\ntune of $5 trillion to take care of those people--creepy billionaires\nwho can't even count their wealth but for some reason insist on coming\nto Congress and just seizing even more and looting the public trough.\n  Offshoring corporations get a special tax benefit for offshoring jobs\nand investment, moving them away from America. Remember, this was the\n``America first'' agenda--but not when you look into the weeds of this\ncrooked bill.\n  So creepy billionaires, offshoring corporations, and, of course,\nfossil fuel polluters who want to pollute have got all the money in the\nworld. They have made massive profits. They could do their own carbon\nremoval and make their products safer. They choose not to. They choose\nnot to because they want to pollute, and they want to kill their\ncompetition so they can pollute more and profit more and drive up\nconsumer prices, as I showed here.\n  And guess what. The creepy billionaires, the offshoring corporations,\nand the fossil fuel polluters--what do they have in common? Huge donors\nto the Republican Party. That is what this bill is about. It is not\nabout taking care of the economy. It is not about taking care of the\npublic. It is payback to big special interests and billionaires who\nprovide the dark money funding that floats the Republican Party, and\nnow they are demanding payback for the majorities that they bought.\n  There is a wasp that lays its larvae inside another bug, and the\nlarvae of the wasp inside that other bug are able to take over the\nnervous system of that other bug. They can take over the command and\ncontrol system of the bug, and they start driving the bug around from\nthe inside. They make it do what the larvae want it to do. They make it\ngo where the larvae want to be. They make it hang where the larvae want\nit to hang. And then the larvae consume it from the inside. They eat\nit, and they turn into the next generation of wasps.\n  That is a pretty good analogy for what has happened here. Those\ncreepy billionaires, those fossil fuel polluters, those big offshoring\ncorporations have taken over the command and control system of the\nRepublican Party. The bug over there is being marched around by those\nspecial interests, doing exactly what it is told. And it doesn't care\nabout the 16 million people coming off insurance, it doesn't care about\nthe added pollution, it doesn't care about the increased costs, it\ndoesn't care about the unfairness, and it doesn't care about making the\nTax Code more corrupt because the special interests are in that bug,\nrunning that show.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.\n  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come today to explain my vote yesterday\nfor voting against the motion to proceed on this bill.\n  I spent most of my career in management consulting. I managed large,\ncomplex enterprise projects, multiyear, thousands of hours, with a lot\nof complexity that takes people, process, and technology to make them\nwork. I learned a lot in that career, and I was able to go to the\nlegislature and take that mindset as a member of the minority for two\nterms.\n\n[[Page S3646]]\n\n  Then we got the majority in 2010, and I found myself being the\nspeaker of the house. We were in the middle of the financial crisis.\nWhen I got sworn in in January of 2011, North Carolina had a $2 billion\nshortfall on a $20 billion general revenue fund, and I had 6 months to\nbalance that budget.\n  We did something that had not been done in North Carolina. We took\nthe time to understand every aspect and every dollar that was being\nspent in government. We determined how to cut government in a way that\nwas sustainable. We cut 12 percent from the university system budget,\nnot at the rate of growth but the actual spending.\n  I had some people say that it was going to be disruptive, and the\nUniversity of North Carolina would never be the same again. But we did\nit in a way that was instructed by the operations of the university\nsystem. And we did it in a way in concert with the chancellors.\n  And do you know what happened? We actually balanced the budget. We\ndid do those cuts. And the last time I checked, the North Carolina\nUniversity system is still considered one of the greatest systems in\nthe United States of America.\n  Why do I use that example? Because the Medicaid proposal in this bill\nbears no resemblance to that kind of discipline and due diligence. It\nhas no insights into how these provider tax cuts are going to be\nabsorbed without harming people on Medicare.\n  Even worse, most of my colleagues do not even understand, on either\nside of the aisle, the interplay of State-directed payments and the\ndevastating consequences of the funding flows that are going to be\nbefore us.\n  Here is how I figured out the impact in North Carolina: I used to be\nspeaker of the house. And I like the speaker and have a good\nrelationship with the speaker and the President pro tempore, so I\ncalled them up. I had my staff ask them if they would do an impact\nassessment on what this proposed bill would do to the Medicaid Program\nin North Carolina.\n  But I didn't want just the view of the Republican partisan staff that\nreport to the speaker and the President pro tempore on how they are\ngoing to absorb this bill. I decided to go to Josh Stein, the Governor.\nI went to his Democrat staff for Medicaid. I asked them to prepare an\nestimate, independent of the estimate that I had done with fiscal\nresearch.\n  But I took it a step further. I went to the hospital association. I\nasked three different independent groups--a partisan Democrat group, a\npartisan Republican group of experts, and a nonpartisan group of the\nhospital association to develop an impact assessment, independent--not\ntalking, not sharing, reporting to me.\n  What I found is the best case scenario is about a $26 billion cut.\nNow, we have got a delay, so it may be 2 years; it may be 1 year. All\nit does is make that $26 billion happen in year 1 or year 12. But the\nimpact is the same, and it is indisputable.\n  Now, when I actually presented this report, that you can find on my\nwebsite, I had people in the administration say: You are all wet. You\ndon't know what you are doing.\n  I said: Well, why don't we assemble a series of meetings. We are\ngoing to provide you our analytics. You go through it. Tear it apart.\n  And I told Mehmet Oz, whom I consider to be one of the most capable\npeople in the Trump administration--he is a brilliant man. I encourage\nmy Democrat colleagues to talk to him. He knows his stuff, and he is\nvery focused on getting efficiencies out of CMS.\n  So we had three different conference calls with CMS, with Oz on the\nvideo and me on the video. I said this: Guys, I would love nothing more\nthan for you to prove me wrong. I would love nothing more than for you\nto tell me it is not $26 billion or $30 billion; that it is $2.6\nbillion or $2 billion or $200 million.\n  But after three different attempts for them to discredit our\nestimates, the day before yesterday, they admitted that we were right;\nthat between the State-directed payments and the cuts scheduled in this\nbill, there is a reduction of State-directed payments, and then there\nis the reduction of the provider tax. They can't find a hole in my\nestimate.\n  So what they told me is that, yes, it is rough, but North Carolina\nhas used the system; they are going to have to make it work.\n  All right. So what do I tell 663,000 people in 2 years or 3 years\nwhen President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid\nbecause the funding is not there anymore, guys?\n  I think people in the White House, the amateurs advising the\nPresident, are not telling him that the effect of this bill is to break\na promise.\n  Do you know the last time I saw a promise broken around healthcare,\nwith respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, is when\nsomebody said: If you like your healthcare, you can keep it. If you\nlike your doctor, you can keep it.\n  We found out that wasn't true. That made me the second Republican\nspeaker of the house since the Civil War, ladies and gentlemen, because\nwe betrayed the promise to the American people. Two years later, three\nyears later, it actually made me a U.S. Senator because in 2010, it had\njust been proposed. And just anticipation of what was going to happen\nwas enough to have a sea change election that swept Republicans into\nthe majority for the second time in 100 years.\n\n  Now Republicans are about to make a mistake on healthcare and\nbetraying a promise.\n  It is inescapable that this bill, in its current form, will betray\nthe very promise that Donald J. Trump made in the Oval Office or in the\nCabinet room when I was there with Finance, where he said: We can go\nafter waste, fraud, and abuse on any programs.\n  Now those amateurs who are advising him--not Dr. Oz; I am talking\nabout White House healthcare experts--refuse to tell him that those\ninstructions that were to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse all of a\nsudden eliminates a government program that is called the provider tax.\n  We have morphed a legal construct that admittedly has been abused and\nshould be eliminated into waste, fraud, and abuse.\n  Money laundering, read the code. Look at how long it has been there.\nI was speaker of the house. I refused to do it. When I left North\nCarolina, I said we are not going to do a provider tax. I left it at\n2\\1/2\\ percent. Now it is 6--a mistake on the part of the leadership.\n  Frankly, I know my friends are probably going to think I am a little\nbit crazy here, but I actually passed a law that made it illegal to\nexpand Medicaid.\n  Why did I do that? Because I was convinced someday we would be here.\nI would have rather found a way to get more people on Medicaid at the\nstandard FMAP than having this 90-10 match and watching it disappear\nand taking away desperately needed healthcare.\n  Over the course of the evening, I may look for an opportunity to\nspeak again, but I am telling the President that you have been\nmisinformed. Your supporting the Senate mark will hurt people who are\neligible and qualified for Medicaid.\n  I love the work requirement. I love the other reforms in this bill.\nThey are necessary, and I appreciate the leadership of the House for\nputting it in there. In fact, I like the work of the House so much that\nI wouldn't be having to do this speech if we simply started with the\nHouse mark.\n  I have talked with my colleagues in North Carolina. I know that we\ncan do that. And I believe that we can make sure that we do not break\nthe promise of Donald J. Trump that he has made to people who are on\nMedicaid today.\n  But what we are doing, because we have got a view on an artificial\ndeadline on July 4 that means nothing but another date in time--we\ncould take the time to get this right if we laid down the House mark of\nthe Medicaid bill and fixed it.\n  My friend and colleague from New Hampshire, I jumped in front of her,\nso I am only going to take another minute or two.\n  But we owe it to the States to do the work to understand how these\nproposals affect them. How hard is that? I did it. How hard is it? How\nhard is it to sit down and ask the Medicaid office, ask the legislative\nstaff, ask the independent hospital association what the impact is? If\nthere is no negative impact, what is wrong with daylight? What is wrong\nwith actually understanding what this bill does?\n\n[[Page S3647]]\n\n  I know what it does because I spent a career implementing complex\nsystems, and then I had the privilege of being speaker of the house,\nand I implemented a limited government setting. And since I have been\nhere, I have focused on bills and watched their implementation from the\ncradle until they are fully implemented.\n  We owe it to the American people and I owe it to the people of North\nCarolina to withhold my affirmative vote until it is demonstrated to me\nthat we have done our homework; we are going to make sure that we\nfulfill the promise; and then I can feel good about a bill that I am\nwilling to vote for. But until that time, I will be withholding my\nvote.\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-2025-06-28-pt1-PgS3613"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 12.039492023177445, "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"}