[Pages S1075-S1125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 AND SETTING FORTH THE APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026 THROUGH 2034--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative
session.
The Senator from South Carolina.

Budget Reconciliation

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, my colleagues will soon be starting what
is commonly called a vote-arama. If you have never been in one, it is
OK. But know it is a chance to have a spirited discussion and debate
about policy and about the budget resolution.
So what has happened here is that the Budget Committee reported out
S. Con. Res. 7. That will allow, through the reconciliation process,
the spending of money and the reduction of spending based on different
committees.
This resolution allows for $175 billion of border and immigration
policy enhancements, but it doesn't spend a penny. It allows the
Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee to come up with
an up-to $175 billion plan to secure our border and do immigration
reform.
And what will happen is that those two committees will work with the
Trump administration to meet their priorities. There is nothing in this
resolution directing one dime of spending, and no spending bill can be
implemented without Presidential signature. So I want to make sure that
is clear.
There is $150 billion in increased defense spending. Why? Because we
have a lot of threats.
Since the withdrawal of Afghanistan, radical Islam is on the rise. We
have got a hot war with Russia and Ukraine. Israel is facing enemies on
seven sides. We have provided weapons to allies in Ukraine and Israel.
We have run out of 155 howitzer rounds. We have got to reinforce our
industrial base. We need more money into our military yesterday to make
sure that we can deter a war, and, if we get into a war, we win it.
So the $150 billion will be allocated by the Armed Services
Committee. We don't direct how the $150 billion is spent. We just allow
the Armed Services Committee to spend that much, if they choose. They
decide what to spend it on.
So this idea that there is somehow money in this resolution for
Ukraine or any other specific purpose is not true. All we do is create
a number for the committees to mark up to, and it is up to the
committee as to what is in the $150 billion package.
And to all the colleagues here, you eventually get to vote on that
work product, and, if you don't like it, you can vote no. And,
eventually, that work product will have to be signed by the
President. So that is the way the process works.

What we are doing today is jump-starting a process that will allow
the Republican Party to meet President Trump's immigration agenda
through the reconciliation process. And the Democrats chose this very
process to pass ObamaCare and the Inflation Reduction Act.
We are going to use it to secure our border. We are not going to grow
the government just for the sense of growing the government. We are not
going to create a Green New Deal. We are going to create border
security transformational in nature.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to embark on a plan to jump-start
the most transformational border security bill in the history of the
United States because we need it yesterday. We have had 11 million
people come to this country illegally. Fentanyl kills 3,000 Americans
every 2 weeks. It comes across that southern border.
We are running out of detention space to hold people. Tom Homan, the
border czar, came to the Republican Senate last week or 2 weeks ago and
said that ICE is out of money. This resolution jump-starts the process
to get Tom Homan the money he needs to fulfill the promises we made, to
build more detention beds so you don't have to let people go. Laken
Riley's murderer was in detention and released because of lack of bed
space and wound up killing the young lady. That should never happen
again. When you are detained, we should hold you and process you
according to law, not release you. We need more detention beds.
We need to finish the wall. This $175 billion will be allocated by
the committees in question, and it will allow President Trump to finish
the wall, secure the border, and deport criminals.
ICE is out of money.
If you think it is a good idea to go after the criminal gangs that
have come here over the years illegally, then you are right.
To my Democratic colleagues, you should be working with us, not
against us. Everybody should want to clean up the mess of the last 4
years. Everybody should want to go after criminal gangs. Everybody
should want to secure the border because it is a national security
nightmare. And nobody should want the dilemma of a nation having to let
somebody go who could potentially be dangerous because you have no
place to put them.
This $175 billion will allow for the most transformational border
security bill in the history of the country at a time of great need.
The $150 billion will be allocated by the Armed Services Committee.
They will decide what to spend it on. There is a lot of modernization
we need of our nuclear triad fleet. We need more weapons. Our stockpile
is low. There are a bunch of things we can spend $150 billion, but we
will let the Armed Services Committee decide those priorities.
When it comes to border security--the $175 billion plan--the
committees of jurisdiction will allocate that money, not this
resolution. But without this resolution, we can't move forward.
Why is this resolution important? Without this bill passing, S. Con.
Res. 7, there is no hope getting money for the border the way it needs
to be done. Without this resolution passing tonight or early tomorrow,
we are not

[[Page S1076]]

going to get any money for the military without having to negotiate
nonmilitary spending increases.
We don't have a lack-of-spending problem in our country; we have
spent way too much on things that don't matter enough. Part of this
process will be committees finding offsets, reducing spending.
So we are telling the Armed Services Committee: Spend $150 billion
the way you see fit. We are telling two committees to spend $175
billion to secure our border. We are telling seven other committees:
Find savings inside your committee to offset the spending we are
creating in this bill.
I think they can do that. I think what DOGE is doing is good. This is
a form of that.
Every committee that has been instructed to save at least $1 billion
will be able finally to go into the committee itself, see what they
spend on, and reduce spending because we are directing them to.
My hope is that the $342 billion we are going to spend to secure our
border, help the military, and enhance the Coast Guard will be offset
with $342 billion of cuts in other parts of the government. We can do
it, but this resolution has to pass or we won't do it.
I am highly confident that the Republican chairmen of the committees
in question will deliver. I am highly confident that we can find
savings in the government to offset the spending we are creating.
The Democratic Party used this process for their Green New Deal. They
used this process for ObamaCare. We are using this process to help our
military, who needs help, to secure a border that has been broken, and
to enhance the Coast Guard. That is the difference. We are doing things
that need to be done to make us safe.
Mr. President, 3,000 Americans die every 2 weeks because fentanyl
comes across the border. We are going to fix that.
Since President Trump has been in office, border crossings have gone
down by 90 percent. We want to reinforce this success. We want to
finish that wall. We want to make sure we never release another person
in this country because we don't have a bed. We are going to make sure
the criminal gangs keep leaving, not staying because ICE doesn't have
enough money.
Why are we doing this? Because Tom Homan and Mr. Vought, the head of
OMB, told us 2 weeks ago that we are out of money to finish the job
President Trump started.
To my House colleagues: I prefer one big beautiful bill that makes
the tax cuts permanent, that does the things we need to do on the
border and with our military and cuts spending. I wish you all the
best. I prefer what you are doing to what we are doing, but we have to
have a plan B if you can't get it done soon.
What is the Senate doing? We have decided to front-end load security.
We want to cut taxes. We want to make the tax cuts permanent. We are
going to work with our House colleagues to do that. They expire at the
end of the year, but we have time to do that.
It is the view of the Republican Senate that when it comes to border
security, we need not fail. We should have the money now to keep the
momentum going. When it comes to the Republican Senate, we believe the
military needs money now because the world is on fire.
To my House colleagues: We will all get there together. If you can
pass the one big beautiful bill that makes the tax cuts permanent--not
4, 5 years--then we will all cheer over here. Nothing would please me
more than Speaker Johnson being able to put together the bill that
President Trump wants. I want that to happen, but I cannot sit on the
sidelines and not have a plan B.
This Nation is under threat. The illegal immigrants who have come
here by the millions need to be sent back by the millions. The border
needs to be secured. The wall needs to be finished. We need more
detention space. We need to upgrade our military capability now.
The reason we are doing it now is because we were told ICE is out of
money now.
I am hoping the House can deliver, but I am very confident that in
the Senate, early in the morning, Republicans--not one Democrat vote--
will set in motion a process that will transform our border security to
the most modern, aggressive border security plan in the history of the
country, north and south; that it will set in motion $175 billion of
new spending to secure the border in a way that has never been achieved
in the past.
If this resolution fails, God help us all. If this resolution passes,
help is on the way.
If you believe that America needs to be serious about securing our
border, this bill gets the job done. If you believe the military needs
to be stronger, not weaker, at a time of threat, this bill gets it
done. If you believe the Coast Guard needs more capability to deal with
drugs and national security threats, this bill delivers. This is a
security bill.
This is a bill that will combat fentanyl killing Americans. There are
more Americans dying every 2 weeks from fentanyl than on 9/11. Hundreds
of thousands of young Americans--young and old but mostly young--have
died from fentanyl poisoning coming across that southern border. We are
going to go after those cartels. I am confident that President Trump is
the new sheriff in town that we need. But without resources, it won't
work.
Tom Homan came to us and begged us for money to continue the plan he
has enacted to get gangs out of this country, to secure that border,
and to add more detention space.
Tom, we heard you. We are going to meet your needs.
I am excited about this debate. I am excited about Republican-led
chairmen finding ways to reduce spending to pay for this.
This is a big deal, folks. The Republican Party is going to go all in
on border security. We are going to upgrade our defense capability, and
we are going to pay for it.
Has anybody at home ever had to pick between two things? You couldn't
do everything. You couldn't have it all. You had to spend because your
child got sick or hurt, and you had to cut somewhere else because there
wasn't enough money to do both. We are going to set priorities. If you
have a sick child or something bad in your family happens, that goes
first. That means you have to pick somewhere else--except in
Washington.
That model is over. We are going to start a new way of doing
business. We are going to spend on things that need to be done and
should be done by the Federal Government to keep us safe, and we are
going to offset it by reducing spending in areas that are not as
important.
I am excited about this process. I urge my colleagues to come down on
both sides of the aisle and participate in this debate. This is what I
was elected to do, I think--make America safe and prosperous and do it
in a fiscally responsible way. The idea that we are going to actually
offset spending is a great day. We are going to deliver.
This is going to go into the night. Our Democratic colleagues are
going to have a chance to offer a lot of amendments to our approach.
They will want this and they will want that. What breaks my heart is
they don't see the value what we are trying to do.
Every American should want more money going into DHS to secure our
border. Every American should want more capability in the hands of the
military at a time of great threat. But we can't get there. We can't
reach common ground on those issues. So we are going to use the process
they used. They used the process to create ObamaCare, the Green New
Deal, and the Inflation Reduction Act. We are going to use that very
same process to make the cartel's life miserable, to go after criminal
gangs, to finish the wall, upgrade the capability of the Coast Guard,
and make our military the most lethal it has been since Ronald Reagan,
and we are going to pay for it all.
In a bit, I will read a script that starts the process.
To the Senator from Ohio, the Presiding Officer, this is why you
came. This is what you promised to do. I was on the campaign with you,
and you looked your voters in the eye and said: We are going to do
things different. We are going to secure our border, we are stop the
fentanyl from poisoning your kids, and we are going to be serious about
fiscal responsibility. We are going to pay for all of this.
Mr. President, you have a chance here to do what you promised you
would do.

[[Page S1077]]

All of us on this side of the aisle--people are counting on us. They
are counting on this Republican majority to deal with the mess that has
been created for the last 4 years. They are counting on this Republican
majority to give the President the money he needs to do the job that he
promised to do. And we are going to deliver. We are going to do it, and
we are going to do it tonight. If it is 5 o'clock in the morning--I
don't care how long it takes--we are going to deliver, and we are going
to pay for everything we do.
In a little bit, in a small period of time, around 5 o'clock, we are
going to start this process. This is a big deal, folks. This is not
just business as usual in Washington; this is a different way of doing
business.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we need to be focused on solving
problems. I think most of us here get that. No matter who the President
is, our constituents expect us to work for them. They expect us to
fight for them, and they expect us to do the hard work of passing laws
to make their lives better.
People don't send us here to make their lives worse, but that is
exactly what Trump and Musk are doing. They are looking at our most
pressing problems and making them worse. This budget proposal will only
add fuel to that fire.
Right now, even as egg prices hit an alltime high, Trump and Musk
have done nothing to lower prices. They have done nothing to address
the housing crisis or help families get quality, affordable childcare
or address other issues I hear about from folks all the time. Instead,
they are slashing programs that help our families make ends meet. They
are gutting an Agency that saves working people money and protects them
from scams and starting trade wars that will impose what is effectively
a Trump sales tax entirely on the backs of American workers.
As China works to strengthen its global leadership, Trump and Musk
have ceded the ground almost entirely, illegally cutting off
investments we make to continue our country's leadership and help our
allies.
At the most precarious moment for the Middle East in decades, Trump
is casually proposing to ethnically cleanse Gaza so that Trump and his
family can build waterfront property there.
When it comes to helping our allies in Ukraine secure a just peace,
Trump is giving away countless concessions to Putin--out of the gate--
calling our ally a ``dictator'' and meeting with Russia without
inviting Ukraine.
When it comes to the bird flu, Trump and Musk are firing the very
workers who are responsible for tracking the disease and keeping it
from spreading further; and now, suddenly, they are desperately trying
to hire them back.
As Texas deals with a serious measles outbreak, Trump's Secretary
can't even confirm the obvious and tell parents the vaccine doesn't
cause autism, which, to be clear, it does not.
And almost unbelievably--just weeks after the deadliest commercial
plane crash in the United States in over two decades--Trump and Musk
are firing FAA workers who make sure flying is safe. Who does that
help?
Now Trump is letting Musk run wild by inappropriately accessing and
rifling through sensitive SSA and Treasury files, with the IRS being
next--your data. How does that make sense?
But while President Trump is busy making problems worse and trampling
our laws and quoting dictators, what are we doing here in the Senate?
Are we holding President Trump accountable? Are we holding his ``co-
President,'' Elon Musk--the richest man in the world who has billions
of dollars in conflicts of interest--accountable? Are we putting a stop
to the catastrophic cuts and reckless firings that are hurting people
and our communities and setting our country back decades?
It seems to me that would be a good use of time. After all, I have
even heard some Republicans admit that cutting things like medical
research and firing people like our VA workers are bad ideas. So you
would think, maybe, we could work together from that common ground,
but, instead, Republicans are throwing all their effort behind a
partisan plan to slash and burn programs that help our families and
raise costs for everyday Americans and shovel billions of dollars to
help people who already have billions of dollars.
Meanwhile, I would like to recommend to my colleagues that we are
less than a month away from a deadline to pass bills to fund our
government, and as we approach that deadline, the entire world is
watching as President Trump and Elon Musk shut the government down bit
by bit--whatever parts Elon doesn't like. Trump and Musk are already
showing thousands of our essential workers the door despite the fact
they have no clue what those workers do or why their jobs matter. They
are just turning off the lights and hoping for the best.
I am hearing so much alarm on this from back home--from fired workers
and from the people who depend on them. Trump and his ``co-President''
are shuttering entire Agencies. They are locking workers out of their
devices and out of their buildings and demanding the work of the
American people come to a screeching halt--again, for no good reason.
Let me really drive home just how damaging and extreme these firings
are because we are not talking about some routine changing of the guard
or some thoughtful or strategic plan to make government more efficient.
Trump and Musk are just taking a wrecking ball to the U.S. Government.
They don't care what they smash up. They don't care whom they hurt, and
they don't seem to have any idea just how painful this is for American
families. We are talking about tens of thousands of people--and
counting--being pushed out the door without any plan and without any
justification beyond Trump and Elon just wanting to slash and cut with
reckless abandon.
This has nothing to do with making government more efficient; it is
about breaking it beyond repair. Fundamentally, this is not about
cutting waste or curbing fraud. Instead, this is about putting the
Federal workforce into trauma. That is how OMB Director Russell Vought
callously put it. So they are mass firing hard-working women and men--
many of them veterans--whose only mistake was serving our country,
serving our communities, and believing they wouldn't get stabbed in the
back by a wannabe dictator and the richest man in the world.
In setting aside the fact that many were illegally fired and without
real cause, it is not just the workers who are suffering because of
this. These cuts undermine essential services for the American people
right down to some of the most basic functions of government.
Trump and Musk are firing people who help Americans find quality,
affordable health insurance; people who help small businesses get a
loan; people who help communities and families get back on their feet
after a disaster; and people who help Americans get their tax refunds.
They are firing people who help our economy stay competitive--from
firings that undermine energy projects and thousands of good new jobs
to firings that undermine innovation and technology, to firings that
are hurting our farmers and undermining agricultural research.
They are laying off national park rangers, which will mean longer
wait times, dirtier bathrooms, delayed emergency responses, and closed
parks. They fired Forest Service workers who are crucial to preventing
wildfires.
Again, I have to emphasize they are firing FAA workers, for crying
out loud, including personnel who work on radar and landing and other
critical infrastructure that help our aircraft navigate safely. They
are firing these people and pretending it is no big deal, all just
weeks after, by the way, the deadliest crash our Nation has seen in
decades. Trump and Elon might not fly commercial, but the rest of us
do.
In the Pacific Northwest, the Bonneville Power Administration is
losing hundreds of highly skilled workers, and that includes everyone
from electricians, engineers, dispatchers, line workers, cybersecurity
experts, and many more. These are literally the people who keep the
lights on, and now they are being fired on a whim because Trump and
Elon Musk do not have a clue about what they do and why it is
important. And do you know what? They don't care. They don't even seem
to understand, actually, that these positions are funded by
ratepayers--by all of us who live in the Northwest. They are not from
Federal funding.

[[Page S1078]]

Trump and Musk have even fired over 1,000 VA workers, including
people who are doing lifesaving research for our veterans: research to
prevent veteran suicide; to build life-changing prosthetics; and to
address opioid addiction and more. These layoffs will mean longer wait
times for veterans to see their healthcare providers. It could mean
ongoing clinical trials coming to a sudden stop. It means delays in
getting your disability claim approved because Trump and Musk went
ahead and fired clinicians and claims raters even while, today, the
current backlog of disability claims is over 250,000. That is not just
a betrayal of these public workers; it is a betrayal of our women and
men who have served us in uniform. It is also worth noting that many of
the workers being fired are veterans themselves. Trump is firing
veterans.

And let's not forget the thousands of NIH researchers who are having
their research thrown into jeopardy and the patients who are watching
President Trump carelessly toss their best hope for a cure into the
shredder--or CMS experts. They are working on improving maternal health
outcomes so fewer pregnant women die in this country.
Medical research layoffs aren't the only ones putting American lives
at risk because Trump and Musk are firing public health workers who
respond to disease outbreaks: cybersecurity experts who protect our
critical infrastructure, sensitive systems, and our data; scientists
who make sure our water and our air are clean and that we are ready for
extreme weather; workers who help our communities prepare for, respond
to, and recover from disasters, not to mention members of law
enforcement who help stop violent criminals, and, of course, our
nuclear engineers.
Seriously, people who manage our nuclear weapons stockpile are being
fired by the hundreds with no real strategy, and we know there is no
strategy because then Trump and Musk frantically turned around and
rehired many of them. We also know they haven't learned their lesson
because they just did the exact same thing to our workers who are
responding to bird flu--reckless layoffs followed by: Wait. No. Come
back.
That is not a plan. That is not a plan. To callously fire people who
help us stay ahead of deadly diseases and to maintain a safe, secure,
and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile--that is the height of dangerous
incompetence.
Nuclear cleanup work has been hit as well. I have been fighting to
get more resources for the Hanford cleanup in Washington State for
years. It is already understaffed, and now Trump is actively making
things worse. I have heard directly--directly--from workers at Hanford
who have been laid off even after some were recognized just this past
year for their outstanding work.
And, by the way, that underscores another reality of these firings:
They have absolutely nothing to do with merit. In fact, they are
targeting new employees, including people who were recently promoted.
So now these workers are getting fired from their newly earned jobs--
literally pushing out some of our best performers and our most
committed workers.
One more thing. They are even illegally firing the government
watchdogs who provide accountability and prevent fraud. If Trump and
Musk were really committed to tackling waste, fraud, and abuse, would
they fire the very people serving in nonpartisan roles and whose very
jobs are to uncover and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse? If they were
really interested in transparency, would they have torn down websites
where the public can find information about Agencies' spending and
policy?
The list of pointless, actively dangerous firings goes on and on. It
grows by the day as does the followup alarm being caused by it. My
phones have been ringing off the hook, and I know I am not the only
one. Again, these sweeping layoffs do not address fraud or waste. They
are totally arbitrary, pushing out high performers and the promising
next generation of our Federal workforce, which won't be easily
replaced, not to mention the hiring freeze prevents them from even
trying.
And here is the thing that is so important to remember: These are
people who have families. They work hard. They love their country. They
are not being sent packing because they have done anything wrong or
because their work is not important. They are being pushed out simply
because Trump and Musk are trying to break the government, trying to
make it not work for the people who need it. It is wrong, and if this
doesn't stop now, it will be catastrophic.
The scale and scope of Trump and Elon's purge will set our country
back decades. It is not like you can fire anyone and say: Oh, wait--my
bad--and hire them back with the snap of a finger. If you are a VA
medical researcher, working for less than you could make in the private
sector, and you are fired by a billionaire who decides your research on
cancer and burn pit exposure isn't worth the investment, would you want
to come back, especially with the chaos and sheer incompetence of this
administration?
The Federal Government is not Twitter. You can't just fire everyone
and break things and hope for the best. People's lives are at stake.
Elon Musk has no clue what nuclear safety engineers do at Hanford. He
doesn't care that the Social Security Administration is already
understaffed, and pushing more of those Federal workers out the door
will make life harder for our seniors.
This effort to push out and arbitrarily fire Federal workers is going
to break something worse than it already has, and it is going to break
it irreparably. When that happens, the blame will fall squarely on
Trump and Musk and the Republicans.
And it is not just people being fired that is a serious problem.
There are also still--still today--funds frozen without rhyme or reason
or legal authority for Trump to do that. So I am not only worried about
the fast-approaching funding deadline in March, I am worried about the
de facto government shutdown that is happening right now. As we speak,
Trump and Musk are still illegally blocking hundreds of billions of
dollars in funding we all secured for the people we represent back
home, putting good-paying jobs on the chopping block, creating
incredible uncertainty for businesses, stalling funds for our
infrastructure and energy projects, and a lot more.
As another week of Trump's illegally funding blockade has come and
gone, still, reports are coming in from across my State and across the
country of the chaos and cuts this is causing, and yet little to
nothing has been done by this administration to restore investments in
people in red and blue States that they are counting on.
Republicans here in Congress continue to sit by idly while our
communities are robbed of hundreds of billions of dollars in bipartisan
spending. Meanwhile, it is our workers, it is our families, it is our
businesses that are feeling this consequence. With each day that
passes, the uncertain fate of these investments takes a toll of its
own: ever-growing anxiety for workers whose jobs are in jeopardy, for
farmers who are eyeing the calendar and waiting on resources that they
are owed, for business owners worried a ripped-up contract might put
them under.
I have heard USDA grants have been cut off to rural businesses and
farmers in my home State of Washington, and it is putting those hard-
working Americans in dire straits.
A small laundromat ordered new machines, but now Trump is stiffing
them on funds they need to make that payment.
A wheat farmer installed solar panels under a Federal program, but
Trump is going to leave them holding the bag.
A greenhouse has completed its end of the bargain to install
upgrades. Trump has stopped the Federal Government from doing the part
it promised.
And there are so many other Federal investments on hold as well:
Forest Service funding to reduce wildfire risks and restore ecosystems,
EPA funding for clean water infrastructure and cleanup work on our
Superfund sites, HUD and Department of Energy investments to bring down
folks' energy costs and create new, good-paying jobs, funding for our
roads and bridges and transit and flood mapping and fisheries--so many
other things.
Medical research has also been completely upended at research
institutions across our country, throwing lifesaving research, clinical
trials, and patients into uncertainty.
Meanwhile, they have not only illegally blocked our foreign
assistance and shuttered USAID programs that

[[Page S1079]]

bolster our global leadership and make the world safer for Americans,
they are now illegally dismantling the Department of Education. They
have already bulldozed the independent research arm of the Department
of Education. They are taking a wrecking ball to ongoing evidence-based
research and basic collection data we need for accountability to
improve student outcomes at our K through 12 schools and colleges.
And among the many contracts Trump canceled with his Executive orders
was funding for a program that helps students with disabilities
transition from high school to work and work to improve adoption of
evidence-based literacy practices in Washington State.
These billionaires have no idea what programs they are cutting. Given
the chaos of all these efforts--from Trump's sweeping, radical, and
illegal Executive orders to Elon Musk jumping from Agency to Agency and
doing seemingly whatever he pleases and whatever is good for his
business--it is getting hard to even keep track of all the funding that
is being illegally blocked. Even stuff they say is not blocked or say
has been unblocked is still frozen.
But one thing that is clear: This is hurting our families, hurting
our communities, and it needs to stop.
Remember, Musk is the richest man on Earth, with deep business ties
to China and a direct line to Putin. Republicans have chosen to stand
by and twiddle their thumbs as he unilaterally, clandestinely, and
illegally cuts our constituents off from the Federal investments they
are owed and badly in need of. We have zero insight or oversight of
what conflicts of interest Musk has, as he chokes off government
funding left and right and as he hands over our sensitive financial
data and systems to patently unqualified individuals with no
accountability.
This multibillionaire is operating completely in the dark, hoping his
lies are loud enough to drown out any calls for truth or transparency.
You can agree or disagree about Federal spending. Goodness knows, we
have a lot of debates on it here. But it is a complete lie to try and
say this is all fraud, waste, or conspiracy.
As a longtime appropriator, I can tell you, we debate these bills
publicly. We post the details out in the open. We pass them in a
bipartisan way. Republicans overwhelmingly supported the individual
bills we put together in committee last year--many unanimously.
Spending is not a ``conspiracy'' just because Elon Musk doesn't know
how to read USAspending.gov. A program is not waste just because it
doesn't help the richest man in the world. It is not fraud just because
he doesn't like it. A law is not illegal just because he disagrees with
it.
This guy just does not know what he is talking about, and it is,
frankly, embarrassing. He doesn't know how to count.
The DOGE website says it is slashing $55 billion, but it only lists
$16.6 billion, and half of that is a typo. They took $8 million, with
an M, as in ``Musk can't count'' and counted it as $8 billion, with a
B, as in ``BS.'' That is not saving money; it is poor reading
comprehension.
Speaking of reading comprehension, I don't think Elon fully grasps
what the concepts of transparency and accountability mean.
When he tweeted out the names of government employees months ago--and
again this month, even--that was accountability. But when reporters
name people gaining illegal access to Treasury's payment system, that
is a crime?
Elon Musk gets to look at all of our most sensitive data, but no one
gets to look at what he is actually doing? That cannot be the standard.
It is not ``maximally transparent'' for Elon Musk to decide for himself
what he shares publicly about his actions. It is maximally concerning,
especially given that there are many obvious conflicts of interest but
Elon has not recused himself from a single decision.
How is it not a conflict when the owner of SpaceX is gutting NASA
while taxpayer funds to his company keep flowing?
How is it not blatant corruption when the owner of Tesla is freezing
grants and loans that benefit his competitors?
How are we supposed to just trust him when he is probing Agencies
that have done--or are doing right now--investigations into his
businesses?
Trump fired the Ag inspector general who was investigating Elon's
company Neuralink and then fired the FDA officials who were reviewing
it. He fired the EPA inspector general and Transportation inspector
general as they were looking at Tesla. He fired the Labor inspector
general, as the Department has several investigations into Musk's
companies. And Trump fired the Defense inspector general who was
looking at SpaceX and, notably, Musk's connection to Putin.
And it is not just Musk who is concerning. He has brought on an army
of walking redflags to pry into our government's most sensitive data.
How are Americans supposed to feel knowing someone who was previously
fired for leaking sensitive information from their employer is digging
through their most private financial data?
How are Americans supposed to feel knowing someone who engaged with
prominent White supremacists and misogynists online is helping to shut
down USAID?
How are they supposed to feel knowing someone who tweeted explicitly
racist statements, someone who said they were ``racist before it was
cool'' was given control over incredibly important Treasury payments?
What sort of vetting, if any, is going on here? Are they trying to
pick the least qualified, most concerning people?
Hey, Elon, you were supposed to filter out redflags, not select for
them.
The American people deserve transparency. If Elon Musk really has
nothing to hide, then he should leave his safe place on X and at Trump
rallies and come before us at a congressional hearing to be held
accountable to the public.
What they are doing here is not just illegal; it is devastating for
working people in every ZIP code in America, red and blue States alike.
Right now, we need to be speaking out with a unified voice to ensure
that when Congress passes a bill, the law is followed. And we need to
focus on negotiating serious funding bills on a bipartisan basis ahead
of the fast-approaching March 14 deadline. That is exactly what I am
trying to do right now, and a long-term CR should not be acceptable for
anyone here.
As I have reminded my colleagues many times now, there is a world of
difference between a short-term CR that gives us additional time for
good-faith negotiations on full-year funding bills and a long-term CR
that would not only create major shortfalls for critical programs but
would also hand vast power over spending decisions to an administration
that absolutely cannot and should not be trusted.
Passing a clean, full-year CR would, first of all, create major
shortfalls and fail to adjust for new realities on the ground; it could
mean that instead of babies getting fed through WIC, moms are getting
put on a waitlist for the first time in that program's history, and
instead of families getting rental assistance, they get cut off.
A clean, full-year CR means veterans are not able to get the care
they need and the benefits they have earned in a timely way, and it
means our military falling behind, from forcing cuts across DOD to
pausing promotions, station changes, and other really essential
functions.
It also means losing opportunities to provide resources for new
challenges and to provide a check on Trump policies, including ones it
is clear Members on both sides of this aisle have issues with.
And on that note, I want to emphasize--because this is really
critical--unlike a short-term CR, a clean, full-year CR means hundreds
of specific funding directives from Congress fall away, effectively
creating slush funds for this administration to adjust spending
priorities and potentially eliminate longstanding programs as they see
fit. That is a nonstarter.
With a full-year CR, Congress would be turning over our power of the
purse to a President who has already shown he couldn't care less about
the separation of powers.
A year-long CR would be a green light for President Trump, Elon Musk,
and Russell Vought to redirect funding to their own pet projects and
slash and

[[Page S1080]]

burn and zero out the programs we have supported from Congress that our
families count on. Maybe they siphon money away from public schools.
Maybe they slash Federal work study grants and financial aid. Maybe
they zero out money for national parks or monuments they think are too
woke. What would that even mean?
Maybe they scrap all our oversight of immigration courts or end
family reunification or dismantle the guardrails for detaining
immigrants--something we are already seeing, by the way, with the use
of Guantanamo Bay.
They could cut funding to eliminate HIV, address maternal mortality,
or increase vaccination rates. They could turn our constituents'
priorities into slush funds. Clean energy investments could become a
payday for fossil fuels. Money meant to stop fentanyl and opioids could
fuel private prison operations and mass deportations.
Congress must detail its spending priorities and direct President
Trump to implement these programs faithfully by passing appropriations
bills, just as it does every year. There is truly no telling just how
far they would go in bending our Federal budget from what our
constituents need to whatever Trump and Musk want.
If you don't think things could get worse, you are wrong. A clean,
yearlong CR is, frankly, an unacceptable outcome. We cannot tell our
constituents that instead of using our authority to check a President,
we give him the keys to the kingdom. We cannot say: Instead of fighting
to get you the resources you need, we will let a billionaire have more
say in where your tax dollar goes instead.
So we need Republicans to get serious about these bipartisan funding
bills. And we have got to know that once those bills become law, Trump
will actually follow them. We cannot just reach an agreement, pass a
bill, and then stand by while President Trump rips our laws in half.
There is a serious bipartisan path forward for our country, but it is
one where Congress works together to avoid a shutdown, stops the de
facto shutdown that is already happening, and reasserts its authority
to protect the funding our communities need. But, unfortunately, that
is a far cry from the path Republicans are going down with this pro-
billionaire, anti-middle class budget resolution that is on the floor.
Let's be very clear: Republicans' budget resolution doesn't just
accept; it actually doubles down on what Trump and Musk are doing.
And it is not about balancing the budget--we all know that--because
they don't plan to reverse one of the biggest drivers of the debt:
Republican tax cuts. Despite all of the bogeymen Republicans like to
point to as driving the national debt, the reality is that the single
biggest driver of our national debt since 2001 has been Republican tax
cuts. The Trump and Bush tax cuts have cost our Nation over $10
trillion and counting.
And you will never guess what our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are focused on right now. Nothing to lower the cost of eggs. It
is actually more Republican tax cuts.
And, no, they will not be paid for, and, yes, they will blow up the
national debt. While Elon Musk hacks and chops his way through the
government in the name of meager ``savings'' and Republicans are
cheering him on, they are all hoping that we will ignore the elephant
they brought into the room, even as this budget is a roadmap for
painful cuts to programs families count on each and every day--all so
they can give billionaires more tax cuts.
Republicans are going down this partisan path because they know
Democrats are not going to join them in throwing Medicaid, nutrition
assistance, and veterans benefits into the woodchuck so they can throw
more tax cuts at billionaires and the biggest corporations.
Make no mistake, this budget resolution is the DOGE resolution, as it
assumes a staggering amount of $1 trillion in unspecified cuts in 2025
alone and $9 trillion over 10 years. Where do we think those kinds of
dramatic cuts are going to come from? It is going to come out of SNAP
benefits that keep our kids from going hungry. It is going to come out
of our public schools and community health centers. It is going to come
out of lifesaving medical research.
It will mean costs going up--up--for everyday Americans. It means
childcare costs going up when families lose access to Head Start and
other quality, affordable options. It means heating and cooling costs
going up when families get cut off from LIHEAP. It means rent going up
as assistance programs get slashed. It means your healthcare costs go
up as community health centers and family planning providers are forced
to close their doors. It means grocery costs going up as programs like
SNAP and WIC are gutted, not to mention what happens when you cut
support for farmers and for ag research.
And make no mistake, if you are cutting that deeply, that painfully,
you are going to start cutting things like veterans' disability and
education benefits. You are going to start cutting Medicare and
Medicaid, which, for the information of all Senators, 30 million
children rely on.
There is just no other way to make those numbers work, especially
when we know that this is just step one in their plan. And step two is
tax breaks for billionaires and massive corporations.
So, first, they are handing Elon Musk a chain saw to cut programs
that families rely on, with no accountability. Then they are rewarding
him with enormous tax breaks, and that is completely unacceptable. We
should not be taking kids out of childcare to give billionaires a tax
break. We should not be taking food off the family table to put more
fuel in private jets.
I grew up in a family that knew what it was like to fall on hard
times. My dad, who was a veteran, got too sick to work. He had multiple
sclerosis. My mom kept us afloat with my dad's VA benefits and food
stamps and a new job that she got thanks to a Federal workforce
program.
It wasn't easy. Mom always said they crawled--crawled--to Social
Security and Medicare, but she worked hard, and our government was
there for them when those hard times came. I know there are families
struggling right now just like my family struggled then. I hear from
them every day in the letters we get here in Washington, DC, and in the
conversations I have back home in Washington State.
They work hard. They play by the rules. They deserve, at the very
least, the same opportunity my parents had when I was growing up. And I
am not going to stand by silently while Republicans try to sell that
opportunity away to pay for even more tax breaks for billionaires.
I get why that sounds like a good idea to billionaires like Donald
Trump. I get why it is a sweet deal for Elon Musk, the richest man in
the world. It is great for them because they are not the ones footing
the bill. The bill for these tax breaks--the cost of these cuts--is
going to be paid by folks like my mom and dad.
Everyday Americans will pay for billionaire tax breaks with their
healthcare. They will pay for billionaire tax breaks with abandoned
medical research. They will pay for billionaire tax breaks with
shuttered family farms and small businesses.
And Republicans can try and spin a fairytale about how this will pay
for itself, how this will work out for everyone, and how nothing anyone
cares about will be affected. But the reality is going to show through
pretty darn quick and pretty darn painfully because spin is not going
to put food on the table. It will not pay the rent. It won't fix the
roads. It won't lower prices. It won't lower interest rates, and it
won't put money in families' dwindling bank accounts.
When it comes to the job we are all sent here to do, helping people
and solving problems, families need real solutions, not tax breaks for
billionaires and talking points for everyone who loses out.
Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues: Hit the brakes--and not
just on this devastating partisan budget resolution. Hit the brakes on
what President Trump and Elon Musk are doing right now. Let's, instead,
come together and work on serious bipartisan bills to fund the
government. Let's get investments that are sorely needed out to the
folks we represent. Let's pass legislation that gives folks a hand
instead of this Republican plan that gives billionaires a handout.

[[Page S1081]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, things are not as they appear to be, and in
Washington, that is not unusual. In fact, that may be the norm--that in
Washington, things are often not what they appear to be.
If you follow the news, you have been seeing reports of Elon Musk and
DOGE and getting rid of waste and fraud and abuse by the billions, if
not trillions, of dollars. And yet, we are meeting here today, though,
because Congress, namely the Senate, wants to increase Federal
spending.
So on the one hand, you have Elon Musk and DOGE, and the Democrats
complaining to high heavens, ``They are cutting too much; they are
cutting too much,'' and Senate Republicans are coming forward today to
pass a budget to allow them to raise Federal spending. What gives?
Are Republicans for getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse and
reducing the deficit, balancing the budget, as the President says? Or
are they really for increasing spending $340 billion?
The budget that we will vote on will allow increased spending in the
military by $150 billion; increased spending for the border, $175
billion; $20 billion for the Coast Guard. That adds up to about $340
billion.
Well, if we were fiscally prudent, if we were fiscally conservative,
why wouldn't we take the savings from Elon Musk and DOGE and move it
over here and help with the border? Why would we be doing a brandnew
bill to increase spending by $340 billion?
That is because the Senate is acting as it always has. The Senate
hasn't gotten the message. President Trump came to town--a new way of
thinking. They are shuttering the Agencies. They are shutting people
down. They are buying things like $2 million spent in Guatemala for sex
changes, $2 million spent in Brazil for girl-centric climate change,
$4.8 million spent in Ukraine for social media influencers.
While you are at it, we spent--not we, but the people who voted for
this. I voted against all of this. But the Members of the Senate who
voted for this spent several hundred thousand dollars sending designers
in Ukraine to the fashion show in Paris.
It goes on and on: thousands of dollars for a trans opera in
Colombia, more thousands of dollars for a trans comic book in Peru,
hundreds of thousands of dollars spent studying rats to see if lonely
rats use more cocaine than well-socialized rats. Guess what. Lonely
rats love the cocaine. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of
your money on this craziness.
Why not take that crazy spending that DOGE and Elon Musk are finding
and move it over to secure the border? Instead, fiscal conservatives
are faced with a bill they are putting forward to just simply increase
the spending.
I am all for moving it around. I am all for saving it from the
craziness and pushing it over into something more valuable. There is a
procedure for doing this. It is a special procedure. It doesn't require
any Democrat vote. It can happen through simple majority, and it has a
fancy name. It is called rescission. So all the administration would
have to do is bundle together several million dollars of savings--which
it appears they are finding--bundle it together in one bill, send it
back to us, and by simple majority, without any help from the
Democrats, Republicans can cut spending.
Instead, things aren't what they appear to be. You see all this great
work being done to cut spending, to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, and
then you see the Senate acting--we are going to vote all night long to
set up a bill to increase spending by $340 billion.
There is a true philosophical debate within the Republican Party--and
really within both parties--about what the biggest threats to our
country are. Are the greatest threats to America from within or from
without?
I would argue that they are from within. I don't lie awake at night
fearing foreign invasion, that invaders are coming to our shores any
moment. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared, that we shouldn't
defend ourselves. But it does mean that we don't have to have unlimited
spending on our military.
Look, many of my family served. Soldiers have to be paid. We should
take care of them. But, at the same time, we shouldn't be everywhere
around the world, all the time.
We spent close to $300 billion in Ukraine. We have got soldiers all
over Africa. We have got soldiers in Syria. We have got soldiers
everywhere.
We don't need to be doing that.
If you want to put our military's money and spending in perspective,
we spend more than the next nine countries combined. It is not that we
are spending too little. We are spending a lot. But if you decide that
you want more money for the military, take it from the climate change--
the girl-centric climate change in Brazil. Quit spending your money
overseas.
Over the years, we have given Egypt nearly $60 billion. Who runs
Egypt? A general, where there are no elections, kind of like Ukraine,
where there is a president, but he doesn't have to run for reelection
because he has canceled the elections.
Why in the world would we be giving money hand over fist to dictators
and people who don't stand for election? In Egypt, we gave it to one
family, the Mubarak family. When he was finally ousted from power, he
had $20 billion on him.
Well, it actually wasn't on him. A lot of it was in Swiss banks and
all over the place, but he was worth 20 billion. That is nothing. Each
of his kids was worth another 5 billion. So he basically was able to
steal 30 billion of the 60 billion that American taxpayers sent to
Egypt.
That is foreign aid. That is the story of your foreign aid. It is
that you have been being ripped off decade after decade.
But while Elon Musk and DOGE are doing their job working overtime
until late at night, finding us those savings for foreign aid, send
them back. We spent 40 billion in foreign aid. You could send 30
billion back and America would be safer and stronger, and you could put
the 30 billion toward either the military or to the border--your
choice.
There is money like that that can be saved and moved around, but it
is going to have to come back. Ultimately, all the talk of the savings
is ephemeral. It isn't real until Congress has the courage to vote on
it. It has to be certified by a vote.
If Congress doesn't vote, it sort of wishes and washes around in the
ether and may or may not wind up being savings. Ultimately, Congress is
going to have to do their job.
But what we are doing today to vote on the budget is not doing our
job. What we are doing today, which will be a Republican-led effort--
minus me--will be an effort to tee up a bill to increase Federal
spending.
I would say, let's take the savings that we are finding, move that
over to any accounts, do it through a vote of Congress, do it through a
simple majority. It can actually be done even without the budgetary
process.
A rescission package can be sent back without even going through the
whole budget problem. What we are faced with, though, is come the end
of the year--we are halfway through the year, so we are voting on a
budget today that is really somewhat of a fiction because the year is
already half over. We know what is being spent. We know that in the
end, we are going to spend a little over $7 trillion this year. The
problem is, we are going to bring in about $5 trillion, and we are
going to spend about $7 trillion. We are $2 trillion short.
They are getting ready within weeks to add a couple hundred billion
dollars for California. It is appropriate to have sympathy for people
in their plight, but it is not good for the country simply to borrow
money to send it to anyone. If we are going to help people in need, we
should be taking that money from the taxes that come in. We shouldn't
be borrowing it from China and sending it to California. No matter how
noble the purpose is, we should be spending what comes in. We should
not be borrowing a penny.
But come the end of the year, we are going to be over $2 trillion in
increased debt for 1 year. What is our total? Our total is going to be
over $37 trillion, maybe $38 trillion by the end of the year. Interest?
The largest item in our budget is now interest--about $1 trillion in
interest every year. One estimate is that over the next 10 years, it
will be like $14 trillion in interest.
Now, interest doesn't buy anything. Interest isn't feeding anybody.
Interest

[[Page S1082]]

isn't putting out fires in California. Interest is simply wasted
because of the profligate ways of both parties.
People voted for a change. They said: We are going to get a change.
They like what Donald Trump is doing. They like what DOGE is doing.
They like what Elon is doing. Yet here we are. The Republicans are
acting like the Democrats. They are going to vote to increase spending
by $342 billion. It is all going to be borrowed.
Now, some will say: We are going to cut spending to equalize the
money we are going to spend here. But none of that is listed in the
budget.
Now, the House has a budget. The House Republicans have passed a
different budget, and in their budget, they list $1.5 trillion worth of
savings. They have to get to this. They cannot do their special simple
majority vote, the reconciliation vote, unless they find $1.5 trillion.
In the Senate bill, there is $4 billion. Now, they will say, ``That
is just a floor; we are going to find more than that,'' but all they
would promise was the 4. In the House, they realized that is not really
believable, that is not really comforting, so the House said: No, we
are doing $1.5 trillion.
So as this debate unfolds over the next 10, 12, 15 hours--we will be
here for a long time. You know, get your popcorn. Turn your C-SPAN on.
But as this unfolds, I will offer an amendment, and my amendment will
say, let's alter the budget to not only say we are going to increase
spending by $340 billion, my amendment will say we should cut spending
to pay for it by $1.5 trillion.
Ideally, we would do this simply by bringing a rescission package of
the savings that Elon and DOGE are finding, but it would work this way
as well to at least show that we are serious about this. I have seen
this happen again and again, and I know how the story is going to turn
out. I know that come September, which is the end of our fiscal year,
we are about halfway through it. As we get to the end of the fiscal
year, Republicans are going to be going: Uh-oh, I have to go home and
explain to people that the deficit is $2.2 trillion--one of the worst
years ever. I have to explain to people ``Republicans are in charge; we
are taking care of it now'' when it looks like the problem is getting
worse.
We have to immediately start cutting spending. Every Republican needs
to be voting to cut spending. There is a way to do it. It is called a
rescission package.
If you continue to borrow, though, if you think ``I am going to be
nice to everyone and give everyone money,'' you can do it, but the
borrowing is going to crowd out everything, because we have made many,
many promises. We have promised people Medicare. We promised people
Medicaid. We promised people Social Security. We promised people food
stamps. Well, guess what, that equals all of our tax revenue. Those
four promises--Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security--that
equals all of our tax revenue. We don't even vote on those programs.
The programs that we vote on--that is the budget, that is military
and nonmilitary--are a third of the spending. It is all borrowed now.
Essentially, our debt equals our budget. Everything we vote to spend in
the budget is borrowed. So things are out of whack. You can't help
everyone and be everything to everybody.
A way to look at this is, let's say you make $25,000 a year, and all
of your money goes to your rent and your food and taking care of your
family. You have nothing left over. You are working poor. You walk by
somebody on the side of the street, and they are homeless, and you feel
sorry for them. Would you immediately go to a bank and borrow $1,000
and give it to a homeless person? No, you wouldn't, because that would
make no sense whatsoever.
That is what we are doing. We look around the world, and we see
homeless people. We look around the world, and we see hungry people. So
we just simply go to China, the bank, and we borrow money from China
and then we send it to Africa. Well, you know what, if you send your
own money, it is charity. If you send your own money, it is noble. If
you send somebody else's money or you borrow the money and you make the
country go further in debt and you put us more in peril, that is not
charity. That is what is destroying our country. That is what is eating
us up from the inside out. The greatest threat to America is from
within, not from without.
What happens when the currency unravels? What happens when the value
of the dollar doesn't lose 5 percent in a year but loses 5 percent in a
week? That is what happens in the end stages of a currency being
destroyed. People say it will never happen to America. Can't happen in
America. We are the strongest dollar. We are the reserve currency of
the world. Can't happen here.

It can and has happened to great nations. It has happened to great
civilizations that have lost their currency, that have destroyed their
currency. Does it always unravel gradually enough that you can fix it?
No. Sometimes it unravels in the space of weeks.
When the German money lost its value in the early 1920s after the
first war, in September, it took like 100 marks to buy a loaf of bread.
Two weeks later, mid-September, it was 1,000 marks. At the end of
September, it was 1 million. In the middle of October, it was 10
million.
The currency, if you look at the currency and what it would buy in a
2-month period, was completely destroyed in a 2-month period. The
pictures from the history books will show people putting the German
mark into wheelbarrows and wheeling it up to fires to burn for warmth.
It was worth more as fuel than it was to buy things. The workers were
demanding that they be paid more than once a day because you had to go
out and get your pay at noon and spend it then because it was worth
half as much by the end of the day. That is what it looks like when a
country destroys its currency.
How do you destroy your currency? How does inflation occur? If you
watch television, you see that these people are either dishonest or
would fail basic economics. They are like: Well, inflation is
transitory, and, you know, we are not sure where it is from, but maybe
it could be--oh, greedy people owning grocery stores causes inflation.
No. Inflation is an economic fact that comes from borrowing money,
and the Federal Reserve prints up money to buy the borrowed money.
Treasury--when we get behind on our payments, we spend more than
comes in, so we have to borrow money. The Fed buys our Treasury bills.
Well, the Fed doesn't have any money; the Fed creates that money. That
is what inflation is. And so much of it gets passed on to government.
Everybody knows that in the last 3 or 4 years--and part of the
election was over the inflation of the Biden administration. Prices
were up about 20 percent over 3 or 4 years. But in order to keep up
with that, we built in inflation protection to most of our government
programs. So Social Security has cost-of-living increases. So they keep
up with inflation or try to keep up with inflation, but as they do, the
programs just get larger and larger and larger, and we get more and
more behind the eight ball. That is what is happening.
But it is coming to a head. Social Security runs out of money in
2033. When it runs out of money, everybody gets 20 to 25 percent less
in Social Security. What do you think is going to happen in our country
when the poorest among us who live only on Social Security--when they
lose the value of their check, they lose 25 percent of their check?
What do you think is going to happen in this country? And nobody is
preparing them for it. Nobody is doing anything to reform Social
Security, reform Medicare, reform Medicaid.
You know, people are just petrified of everything. What is so
horrible and so hard to say about people who are able-bodied ought to
work? I think everyone should work. I think everyone who is able-bodied
should work not as punishment but as reward. We should have a work
requirement on every check that goes out. Everybody should work. I
mean, it is how you get your self-esteem. You can't give people self-
esteem. You can't say: Here, Johnny, here is a trophy. We know you
can't spell or add, but here is a trophy for being a mathlete.
No, you have to earn your self-esteem. You earn it through work.
Just adding work to Medicaid and saying: You want free health
insurance from the government--adding a work requirement saves $100
billion. Having the States pay more for Medicaid. Why

[[Page S1083]]

do I want the States to pay for more Medicaid? Because they don't have
a printing press. Why are the decisions of this body so awful? Because
there is a printing press.
I had a conversation with one of my Democratic colleagues, and I
said: We have to make a choice. You have to decide whether you want to
help the poor in our country or help the poor in Ukraine or help
whoever you are paying in Ukraine.
He said: We shouldn't have to make a choice.
It is like, you do have to make a choice. The fact that you think you
don't have to make a choice is why we are $36 trillion in the hole. You
have to make choices. Which comes first--Ukraine or America? You can't
do both because we don't have enough money. We only have enough taxes
coming in to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food
stamps. Everything else is borrowed.
So maybe able-bodied people need to go back to work. Maybe there
needs to be a work requirement. Maybe, for goodness' sake, food stamps
shouldn't buy sugared drinks, chips, Ding Dongs, and Twinkies. Could we
not reform our system such that we try to cure the obesity plague in
our country by cutting back what the government buys as far as food?
But today, the opposite will happen. Things aren't what they appear
to be. Things are never, in Congress, really what they seem to be. We
will pass a bill ostensibly by the conservative majority, but the
purpose of this bill is to spend $340 billion in new spending.
Instead, what we should be doing is taking the savings from the
waste, fraud, and abuse that DOGE and Elon are finding--we should take
those savings and use it to spend for things that people think are of
higher priority, such as the border and/or the military.
But I will oppose this budget because I am not for spending more
money. I will oppose this budget because I want to have nothing to do
with a $2.2 trillion deficit. At the end of the year, those who vote
for this budget and those who vote for the new spending will have to
explain to people at home: How about that $2.2 trillion deficit? How
did that happen under a Republican watch?
Until someone is brave enough to say no, it is going to go on and on,
and there is a danger that if we don't stop it, we are going to destroy
the country.
So I will offer an amendment later on to cut spending, to actually
put teeth into this budget resolution, to cut real spending, to balance
our budget, and to do and complete the promises that the President had
in the campaign.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with my colleague from North Carolina Senator Tillis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ukraine

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today
with my friend and colleague Senator Tillis. He and I have cochaired
the Senate NATO Observer Group. We have traveled together on a number
of occasions, and we just came back on Tuesday from a very brief trip
to Ukraine. We were joined by Senator Bennet, who is not able to join
us right now. But I think it is important for us to come to the floor
and to talk about what we saw and what we heard in Ukraine.
It was incredibly powerful to travel to Ukraine, to see firsthand the
situation on the ground there, and we visited a number of places during
the day. We met with residents in downtown Kyiv who had lost their
homes in the January 1 missile attack there, an attack that landed only
about 2 blocks from the Presidential Palace.
While we were there actually meeting with the folks who had lost
their homes, the air raid sirens went off, which is a pretty usual
occurrence apparently in Kyiv. Fortunately, it was not aimed at us in
downtown Kyiv but another outlying community. But it was a warning of
more incoming Russian missiles.
And I have seen the reports in the last couple of days that say that
Vladimir Putin wants peace, but I have to say I am skeptical because if
he really wants peace, nothing is stopping him from calling off those
missile and drone attacks, attacks that are not targeting just
Ukraine's military but that are targeting civilians throughout the
country. They are damaging power stations that Ukrainians depend on for
electricity for daily life.
And, in fact, we visited one of those power stations. This is us. You
can see it was a very cold day. You can't see the power station in the
background, but it was a unique design that had been done by the
Ukrainians in a very short period of time with help from the United
States to protect that site from Russian attacks. And, in fact, they
had just had, in late December, a missile that hit the side of the
transfer station in ways that, if they had not had the reinforcements,
it would have taken down that station.
But what is interesting is that not only have they figured out the
design on the station, but they had what they call a mobile firing
team; that is, two machineguns--you can see, just barely see, one of
them on the truck--and a radar, which is down here sort of out of
sight, again, done with U.S. dollars.
They were able to protect that transfer station and have those mobile
firing teams at a number of sites around the country to protect their
electricity grid because what we know and what we heard is that the
Russians are trying to shut down their power grid because they want to
freeze out the Ukrainians in this war.
We also visited a children's hospital that was bombed in July. We
visited with two teenagers, one young woman who was 16 who not only
lost her mother in a Russian attack, but she lost her ability to walk.
I think she had had, Senator Tillis, about 16 operations at the point
that we saw her, and they were pleased that they thought she was going
to actually be able to walk again, thanks to the great care she got at
the Ohmatdyt Children's Hospital that the Russians bombed--deliberately
targeted in July.
But like so many Ukrainians, the young woman we met with hasn't given
up. Her father sat by her side, surgery after surgery. And despite the
odds, she is learning to walk again. She reflects, I think, the
resilience, the perseverance that we witnessed every place we went in
every meeting that we had.
Despite Russia's advantages in size and manpower, Ukrainians have not
and will not give up, and we should not give up on them either.
Ukrainians have developed robotic mobile firing teams, as I said.
They have been able to make incredible innovations to fix damaged
battlefield equipment. We had a chance on our way into Ukraine to go
through Poland, where they are moving equipment into Ukraine and where
we saw the center where they have a group chat with people on the
frontlines to help them with instructions on how to fix the equipment
in realtime as it gets damaged.
This not only saves time and money for the Ukrainians but for us. It
is an incredible learning opportunity for us as we think about what we
need to do to support our own military. So the Ukrainians are sharing
their battlefield innovations and insights. It makes the United States
stronger, and it shows how much of the assistance we have given to
Ukraine is actually going to benefit us here in America.
When the assistance was frozen in January, it had a major impact on
the ground. We spoke to NGOs in Poland, people who are supporting
Ukrainian refugees in that country. And as one of them was preparing to
give us a presentation, he stopped. He turned to us, and he said: I
can't give this presentation and act like everything is normal.
I thought he was one of the most impactful people we heard from. I
don't know if you felt that way, too, Senator Tillis.
But he said that on January 24, the U.S. Embassy told me to stop all
work. He said: I had to fire single Ukrainian mothers who escaped the
war and now have no jobs and no way to feed their children. He had to
stop psychosocial support services for those who are traumatized by the
war. One girl they had been treating for self-harm is gone, and he
doesn't know if she is alive or not. He was worried she might take her
own life.
Along with the stop-work orders, the NGOs were told to remove all
American flags. Think of that. American flags are coming down in
Poland, one of the most pro-American countries that we can have.

[[Page S1084]]

The people that we spoke to said that their trust has been broken.
The decades of investments in these alliances that we have made were
gone with just one phone call.
Now, I understand that people are tired of this war. But if we think
giving Russia or China free rein won't affect us here in the United
States, we are wrong. The Russians are thrilled. Vladimir Putin has to
be loving this. He has always wanted to undermine NATO.
``Peace for our time'' is what Chamberlain said when he signed the
pact with Hitler. Appeasement doesn't work with dictators. When
Vladimir Putin gets what he wants, it puts Americans in danger. We
understand this. Putin can't be trusted. That is a realistic assessment
of the battlefield.
One Ukrainian woman who lost her husband and son in the fighting told
us she would support cease-fire negotiations but with security
guarantees for Ukraine. Simply freezing the frontline won't do
anything, she warned, because in a few years Russia will invade again.
And she is right. Putin invaded Crimea in 2014. He invaded Ukraine
again in 2022.
There must be a guarantee that Russia won't attack again in a couple
of years. I believe NATO membership for Ukraine needs to be on the
table. This is not only going to protect Ukraine from future attacks,
it will put Ukraine in the best possible negotiating position.
Putin wants Ukrainians to be afraid. We saw that when we visited
Bucha. Some people may remember this was a suburb of Kyiv. It was under
siege for 33 days, held by the Russians. We talked to the mayor, to the
priest of the church, we saw the mass graves where people were buried,
the 500-plus people, civilians, who were killed in Bucha. They were
killed just going about their daily lives.
This is the picture of the body of one of those civilians killed. You
know how they identified her? It was her manicurist. She identified her
by the manicure.
We met with the investigators who showed us the picture of the
Russian commander who gave the order to kill the civilians. He did it
because he wanted to frighten the population. Vladimir Putin is
responsible for this. He is responsible for the bodies in Bucha and for
thousands across Ukraine, and he has to be held accountable. We cannot
let him get away with this.
I want to end by underlying an important point. There is bipartisan
support for Ukraine in Congress. I believe we will continue to support
funding and that if we had another supplemental bill that came to the
floor, it would pass with Republican votes because Americans like
Senator Tillis and I and Senator Bennet, who went with us, we have been
impressed by the Ukrainians' courage, by their resilience, by their
willingness to defend their freedoms and our freedoms. They have kept
their economy and their people going throughout this horrible war.
But by June, Ukraine is going to start running out of what they need.
That is why we need to use the nearly $300 billion of Russian-seized
assets to help Ukraine rebuild. That is why I called on Secretary Rubio
to prioritize the waivers for unfreezing aid to Ukraine.
Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives in the fight for a
sovereign Ukraine. They have been on the front lines for all of us
defending democracy. To abandon them now would not only be a gift to
Putin, it would endanger our allies and the security of the United
States.
I yield the floor to my colleague Senator Tillis.
Mr. TILLIS. I want to thank Senator Shaheen for, actually, a long-
term friendship and vision that she had back in 2018 when she came to
me and wanted to reconstitute the Senate NATO Observer Group. It could
not have been a better time for us to pay more attention to this very
important alliance.
But it is also, right now, today--4 days away from the 3-year
anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine--very important to talk about
the nature of Vladimir Putin and the tactics that they use to terrorize
populations.
President Putin, in October, prior to the invasion in February, said
that he was sending troops to an area to do a training exercise. While
we were getting intelligence that it looked like more than that, he was
already lying to the world by saying: We are just going to train up our
soldiers a little bit more.
Then after the first part of the year going into January, he said:
Well, we are doing the training exercise that just, coincidentally,
happens to be along the Ukrainian border, but it is just a training
exercise.
And then he creates any number of pretext to then talk about how
provocative Ukraine is operating a democracy within their borders. And
he creates the pretext for a ``special military operation,'' invading
Ukraine, trying to finish what he started when he invaded Crimea back
in 2014.
Vladimir Putin is a liar, a murderer, and responsible for the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. And that is bad by itself. But
you know what is worse is when you employ tactics that intentionally
terrorize a population.
Senator Shaheen talked about the power grid. I was in that meeting
she was talking about. Let's talk about systematically how his mind
works, the mind of Vladimir Putin, the leadership of Russia. It is very
cold in Ukraine--very, very cold in the wintertime. And they have tried
to systematically deny them heat over the winter to freeze them out.
They have had to spend millions of dollars hardening substations just
to prevent families, hospitals, critical businesses, first responders
from having power. That is how this man thinks.
But that is not bad enough. Shortly after they invaded Ukraine and
they got the surprise of their life that the Ukrainian people were
willing to fight and die for their country--and they have done it in a
way that Putin could not possibly have imagined. Putin should be
embarrassed. A so-called world power got repulsed by what now is the
largest army in Europe--standing army. It wasn't when the invasion
occurred.
Just with our help through materiels, they have held off Russia for 3
years. Putin probably understood at some point that he wasn't going to
be able to win it through conventional tactics. So what does he go to?
Terrorist tactics--the same sort of tactics he uses in Africa with
mercenaries, terrorizing populations, indiscriminately killing people.
That is what Vladimir Putin does every single day, 24/7, 365 around the
globe.
Now let's get back to Ukraine. He decides to allow, under orders,
Russia military to go into a community of about 200,000 people. That is
roughly the size of the community I live in North Carolina, just north
of Charlotte. Imagine what they are doing. They are going through the
city and indiscriminately, when somebody walks past them, shooting
them, sometimes with 50-caliber weapons and tank armor, murdering them,
stacking them up in mass graves.
I went to this site. I saw it firsthand. This is how he is trying to
win the war because he can't win the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian
people. He destroyed the hopes and dreams of anybody who has lived in
the Soviet era. He wants that to reemerge. He is willing to do
anything, including terrorizing innocent civilians to break their will.

But, thank God, the Ukrainian people are the brave people that they
are because this hardened them. This made them go onto a battlefield
and live in trenches 24 hours a day repulsing the Russian invasion.
There is no moral person on this planet who can consider Putin to
have a legitimate reason to affect this sort of carnage. And I saw it
firsthand. I will never be able to forget it. And what the American
people and the world population will never be able to forget either is
the aftermath of appeasing Vladimir Putin.
Ladies and gentlemen, China is already helping Russia. North Korea
has sent thousands of troops. And North Korea doesn't really care about
life. They have allowed 4,000 to 5,000 of their soldiers to die on the
battlefield within 6 weeks of getting on the ground. They are throwing
body after body trying to kill and break the will of the Ukrainian
people. It is just unacceptable.
Look, I am a Republican. I support President Trump, and I believe
that most of his policies on national security are right. I believe his
instincts

[[Page S1085]]

are pretty good. But what I am telling you, whoever believes that there
is any space for Vladimir Putin and the future of a stable globe better
go to Ukraine; they better go to Europe; they better invest the time to
understand that this man is a cancer and the greatest threat to
democracy in my lifetime. And it will be a cancer that spreads into the
South China Sea, into Taiwan, and metastasize across the globe.
Ladies and gentlemen, when I tell you that Vladimir Putin is a liar,
a murderer, and a man responsible for ordering the systematic torture,
kidnapping, and rape of innocent civilians, believe me because the
evidence is a mile high.
So for those of us who have invested the time to understand this,
believe me when I tell you this is important to every single one of
you. If you believe that Ukraine is a country an ocean away and not
relevant to our national security, think again. The world is small. The
world is watching. The strength of our alliances are on the line and
the future of democracy in the world is on the line if we do anything
less than defeat Vladimir Putin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Idaho.

Budget Reconciliation

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today we are debating the narrow Senate
fiscal year 2025 budget resolution that fulfills promises to secure
America's borders, our national defense, and unleash our energy
potential and finally start to get our fiscal house in order.
In the near future, I expect us to move forward with a budget
resolution that allows us to prevent more than a $4 trillion tax hike
on American households, the largest tax hike in the history of America.
That will be felt by virtually every American if tax cuts expire at the
end of this year.
Because the other side has filed a litany of tax amendments that
rehash various false narratives and each side will only have 1 minute
to debate, I am going to spend a little time right now explaining why
we can't afford a $4 trillion-plus tax increase, the positive impact
that the Trump tax cuts had on the economy, and some of the key
provisions that expire at the end of the year.
At the end of this year, many key provisions of President Trump's
2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire, triggering an over $4
trillion tax hike on American families and businesses. While taxes will
increase on Americans of all income levels, the majority of this tax
hike, about $2.6 trillion of it, will fall on those making less than
$400,000 per year. An average family of four making about $80,000 a
year will see a $1,700 tax hike in 2016. Another $600 billion-plus will
hit millions of small business owners who could see Federal tax rates
skyrocket up to 43.4 percent. Tens of millions of families will see
their Child Tax Credit cut in half from $2,000 to $1,000. The list goes
on.
But, first, I will talk about what the Trump tax cuts actually did
and why failing to extend key provisions would be economically
devastating for millions of hard-working taxpayers.
So what did the Trump tax cuts do? There has been a lot of talk
recently about how extending these tax cuts are for billionaires and
corporations, but the facts actually show otherwise. The 2017 tax bill
increased the take-home pay and powered a growing economy. Individuals
across all income brackets received a tax cut, not just--as opponents
suggest--for the uberwealthy.
In fact, the Trump tax cuts made the Tax Code more progressive,
meaning the highest income earners now pay a greater share of all
income taxes than they did before 2017. The majority of benefits
accrued to the working middle-class families of America. Between the
bill's passage in 2017 and 2021, the bottom 50 percent of earners
received the largest reduction in average tax rates at 17.3 percent.
In addition to lowering tax rates across the board, the Trump tax
cuts doubled the standard deduction and the Child Tax Credit and
provided tax relief to America's entrepreneurs and small businesses.
The effect of pro-growth tax reform was immediate. Not only did
taxpayers get to keep more of their hard-earned money, but a growing
economy helped a median household income reach all-time highs. The
labor market improved; workers saw wage growth; and the unemployment
rate fell dramatically to 3.5 percent--the lowest in 50 years; and the
lowest income workers experienced the largest wage growth. Corporate
inversions became a thing of the past, and America became the place do
business. All Americans reaped the benefits of a booming economy.

Extending this current, proven tax policy and building on it is the
best way to restore economic prosperity and opportunity for working
families, many of whom are still struggling to recover from the
historic inflation of the last 4 years. As American families contend
with increasing costs of everyday living, the last thing they need is
another massive tax hike on top of that inflation. Failure is simply
not an option.
What happens if the Trump tax cuts expire? As I have said, if we do
not extend these tax policies, Americans will be hit with an over $4
trillion tax increase. More than $2.6 trillion of that tax increase
will fall on households earning less than $400,000 per year. An average
family of four making $80,000 will be saddled with a $1,700 tax
increase. This is the equivalent of 6 to 8 weeks' worth of groceries
for a family of four. Tens of millions of families will see their child
tax credit cut in half to $1,000, and 90 percent of taxpayers would see
their standard deduction cut in half.
Owners of over 20 million small businesses will face a massive tax
hike, with taxes up to 43.4 percent, and 7 million taxpayers will be
impacted by the alternative minimum tax, up from just 200,000 taxpayers
currently. Many more small businesses and farms will have their death
tax exemption cut in half. The National Association of Manufacturers
recently highlighted that, if we allow the tax cuts to expire, 6
million jobs will be at risk; $540 billion in employee compensation
will be lost; and the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by
$1.1 trillion.
The bottom line: While we aren't considering tax policy as a part of
this reconciliation package, it is important to set the record straight
as to what is at stake in the upcoming tax debate. The stakes couldn't
be higher. You are going to hear tonight dozens and dozens of tax
amendments being brought. We are going to respond to each of those by
explaining that that debate is not this amendment.
This budget that we are debating today is on the border, on our
national defense, and on increasing our oil and gas production to
strengthen our economy. That is why the Senate and House Republicans
are working together to act as quickly as possible to make these tax
cuts permanent--but that will be in the next step--to prevent a massive
tax hike and to provide certainty and relief to families and businesses
across this Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, the news is coming so hard and fast these
days that it is hard to sort it all out. Every day seems to be
something new that captures our attention, our concern, our interest.
What I would like to do today is to try to put some of it in
perspective as to what is going on in our governing of this country. I
don't believe what I am going to be talking about today is partisan. It
should not be partisan because what I am really talking about is
competent government and constitutional government--really, two
categories: competent government and constitutional government. That
should not be a controversial issue. Neither of those is something we
should be arguing about. It is what we have a responsibility to carry
through in terms of our jobs here in the U.S. Senate. So, of the two
categories I want to talk about, my headings are ``thoughtless'' and
``dangerous.''
First, I want to talk about ``thoughtless.''
The hiring freeze. A hiring freeze can be an effective tool if it is
used thoughtfully and systematically, but to do it across the board,
without a process for exceptions that is built into it, you end up with
all kinds of unintended and negative consequences with firefighters,
parks, losses elsewhere by attrition. There should be a systematic
exemption process. Now it is haphazard and random.
Park seasonal employees first were under the hiring freeze; now they
are

[[Page S1086]]

not. It is sort of like: Oh. Oh, never mind. We are going to be OK with
park seasonal employees.
VA frontline health workers were first subject to the hiring freeze.
Then people said: Oh. Well, we didn't mean doctors and nurses, so that
is OK. You can hire them.
My point is, it is not a rational process. It is ready, fire, aim.
Literally, ready, fire, aim is what we are talking about, and people
aren't doing this in a thoughtful and systematic way.
By the way, the difference between frontline deliverers of care at
the VA and the people who answer the phones who are categorized as
bureaucrats--I don't think there is a stark difference there. If you
are a veteran and are seeking care and an appointment at a VA health
facility and nobody answers the phone, that is a denial of benefits.
That is a denial of benefits just as if they had closed the door in
your face. That is what we are talking about--weakening the systems
that are serving our public.
So the hiring freeze: It is possible to do a hiring freeze. When I
was the Governor of Maine, I instituted a hiring freeze, but we did it
in a systematic and thoughtful way. We had a process for dealing with
exemptions and without destroying the morale and throwing the entire
operation of government into chaos.
By the way, why do we have the government? To serve the people. To
serve the people.
So let's talk about the next step--the firings. The famous ``Fork in
the Road'' letter is a perfect example of a thoughtless way to approach
a problem.
The letter went to everybody. The letter wasn't selective. It went to
everybody--all civilians in the CIA, in the National Security Agency,
in the Defense Department, and also, of course, to all the other
civilian Agencies, but it wasn't targeted in any way. It was, ``If you
want to leave Federal service, we will pay you through September,'' but
it hit everybody. Again, it is not a rational or thoughtful way to trim
the Federal workforce.
You should be talking about, Where are we over? Do we have too many
people? Do we have overstock in terms of public servants, and where do
we need more, for example. Instead, it went to everybody. By
definition, that is not a rational process. Let me just put this in
perspective by the way.
In the ``Fork in the Road'' letter, the estimate, as of today, is
that 75,000 people have taken that option and left. I suppose the
people who are behind this thing think that that is a good victory. The
dollars saved to the Treasury from those 75,000 people represent one-
tenth of 1 percent of the Federal budget. So the people who are saying
that we are cutting the budget; we are cutting; we are saving; we are
saving the taxpayers' money, it is one-tenth of 1 percent. Given the
chaos and the uncertainty and the deletion of services to our American
people, I would argue that is not worth it--one-tenth of 1 percent.
Everyone got these letters. People are being fired now in the CIA, the
FBI, the VA.

On this letter, what if only the best people take the option to
leave? Then you will have really shot yourself in the foot. You will
have encouraged people who were going to retire anyway or who could get
a better job in the private sector. So it is almost--it is an anti-
intelligent way to handle this.
Then you have got situations like at the Department of Energy. In the
first weekend, they fired 350 people in the National Nuclear Security
Administration. Of the people who handle nuclear materials and are
responsible for our nuclear stockpile, they fired almost--I think it
was--something like 20 percent of the personnel. Then, 3 or 4 days
later, they realized: Uh-oh. That was a mistake. So now they are trying
to bring these people back.
The point I am making is, a good, solid, thoughtful process wouldn't
have made a mistake like that. They would have realized from the outset
that these are jobs that we aren't going to be firing, that we aren't
going to be eliminating. It seems to be based on some kind of quota. I
don't know what it is.
OK. So now we are seeing everybody is being fired who is on
probation, probationary people--people who have worked for the
government for less than a year or two. OK. Again, that is arbitrary.
Being on probation doesn't mean you are an effective employee or you
are not an effective employee. You could be one of the best employees
in the whole Federal Government, and you have just come on, and yet you
are going to be fired. It has nothing to do with the productivity or
skill of the worker. It has nothing to do with the importance of the
position. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the Agency in
question that is serving the people of Maine. If you are probationary,
you are gone.
Here is another thing about probation: It turns out, in the Federal
Government, if you are promoted, you are on probation in the new
position. You may have worked for the Department for 5 or 10 years. You
are promoted. You are on probation. You are fired. Even though you have
5 or 10 years of experience--you are capable; you are doing a good
job--there was no effort that I can see. People did get these
ridiculous letters saying: Your performance has not been adequate.
There was no basis for those letters. It was arbitrary--arbitrary.
Remember, I said my categories are ``thoughtless'' and ``dangerous.''
This is thoughtless: probation.
Oh, by the way, about 30 percent of the Federal workforce are
veterans. Now, we don't know the exact figures. That is one of the
problems. We have no transparency about what is going on here and who
is actually being let go and who isn't, but a reasonable extrapolation
is 30 percent of the people being fired are veterans--people who put
their lives on the line for this country. Then they went into public
service, and they are being fired. That is outrageous.
Again, was no one thinking about this? A thousand were fired at the
VA just a couple of days ago.
We learned that people supporting the VA crisis line were fired. What
genius thought that was a good idea?
Last Friday, immigration judges were fired. We are talking about
immigration and the border and the control of immigration, and we are
firing immigration judges? What possible sense does that make?
Here is one: We have had, I think, three serious aircraft incidents
in the last month, and they just fired, I think, 300 people at the
FAA--great--including people who are in the business of maintaining the
systems that keep our airplanes safe. In the wake of 3 serious airplane
crashes, including 1 here in Washington that killed 67 people, we are
firing people at the FAA? Give me a break. What kind of sense does that
make? What kind of service is that to the people of the United States?
Here is one that is not life or death, but it is the National Park
Service. A thousand people were fired last weekend at the National Park
Service. I suspect they were probationary. That means, OK, they had
only been there a year or two, but that doesn't mean they weren't in
jobs that weren't important. The headline in this morning's paper:
``Chaos at the National Parks.'' The lines are twice as long as they
normally are, and if there is chaos at the National Parks in February,
Lord knows what it is going to be in June or July in Yosemite and at
the Grand Canyon and in Acadia, which is in my State of Maine.
Here is a beauty: Some of these people who are being fired are the
people who collect fees at the park. So, to save a buck, we are going
to lose 5 bucks from fees not being collected. Genius. Come on. Five
percent of the workforce at the National Park Service is being fired.
I can tell you I am the cochair of the National Park Subcommittee of
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We need more people at
the national parks, not less. We have had a staffing shortage going
back a half a dozen or 10 years, where visitation is way up, and staff
is flat or declining. Now it is really declining. This is a direct,
hands-on experience for the American people.
Gettysburg: They have been laying off people at the battlefield. Last
night, apparently, something called the Presidential Management Fellows
Program--a training program that is decades old that brings talented
people into the Federal Government--was eliminated. No explanation. No
rationale. Eliminated.

[[Page S1087]]

OK. That is the thoughtless part. And let me give you a little
personal experience. When I was elected Governor of Maine, we had a
serious budget deficit. We were in the middle of a recession. So we
went through a process very similar to the impetus for what is going on
now. We looked at the entire workforce of the State of Maine, but we
did it in a thoughtful and transparent way. We developed a task force
that included private citizens, legislators, and members of the
administration, and we took 8 months--8 months, not 8 weeks--and we
looked at the entire structure of the State of Maine government and
reduced our workforce by about 10 percent--a significant reduction, but
we did it in a thoughtful way and in a way that made sense in terms of
the ongoing service to the people of Maine.
So it can be done, and I am not unsympathetic with the idea of making
things more efficient and even possibly downsizing the government where
it is called for and where additional people aren't necessary. So I am
not here to say we shouldn't be looking for efficiency and saying
everything in the Federal Government is perfect. I don't believe that
for a minute. But I think, if we are going to take on this exercise, it
ought to be done in a sensible way by people who know what they are
doing.
That brings me to DOGE. I don't know what they are doing. Nobody
does. I don't know who these 25-year-olds are that are in the IRS,
rummaging around in the IRS IT system or--we learned in the last couple
of days--Social Security. What are they doing? Who are they? What are
their qualifications? Do they have security clearances? Do they have
conflicts of interest?
All of the rules that are designed to protect us from people making
arbitrary decisions that aren't accountable--you talk about bureaucrats
being unaccountable; these are the ultimate unaccountable people. We
don't know what their relationship is to the Federal Government, what
authority they have, under what law are they operating. It is pretty
clear from mistakes like firing 350 people at the Nuclear Security
Agency--it is pretty clear they don't know what they are doing, and
they are firing people whom we need. OK. That is the thoughtless part,
and it is inexcusable.
That is just pure efficiency of government, of doing the right thing,
and it can be done, but these people aren't doing it.
The second part of what is going on is the dangerous part, and this
is where I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
are standing by and watching the structure of our government be
attacked with no response--elimination of entire congressionally
created Agencies.
USAID was established by statute, and over a weekend, these people
fired everybody, closed the Agency, took the name off the door, and
threw the rest of the world into chaos where these people were working
on important projects all over the world that were part of our outreach
to the world.
And, you know what, as soon as we went out of business at AID, China
is right in the market. It is like walking away from engagement with
the world. It couldn't be a more self-defeating piece of work.
By the way, it is a tiny part of the Federal budget.
James Mattis famously said when he was a general: If you cut the
foreign aid budget, you are going to have to buy me more bullets.
Foreign aid is part of the national security of this country, and to
demolish this Agency without any input from Congress, without any
relationship to the Foreign Affairs Committee or anybody else up here
in Congress, is grossly unconstitutional. It is grossly
unconstitutional.
Here is the problem: This isn't just a battle between the Senate and
the House and the President and they are fighting about powers. No. The
reason the Framers designed our Constitution the way they did was that
they were afraid of concentrated power. They had just fought a brutal
8-year war with a King. They didn't want a King. They wanted a
constitutional republic where power was divided between the Congress
and the President and the courts.
We are collapsing that structure. And the structure wasn't there for
fun. It wasn't there because, hey, we are just going to design this
complicated system. It was there to protect our freedom because the
people who wrote our Constitution understood human nature, and they
understood a very important thousand-year-old principle: Power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So the whole idea was to divide power. To the extent we allow this
assault on our Constitution, this collapsing and excessive power being
granted to the Executive to ignore the laws passed by Congress--and, by
the way, appropriations bills are laws passed by Congress, which the
administration is also ignoring by freezing funding for programs
authorized and funded by Congress. To the extent we do that, we are not
only making a mistake now, but we are altering the essential structure
of our Constitution that is there for a reason, that is there to
protect our freedom.
The people who are cheering this on, I fear, in a reasonably short
period of time, are going to say: Where did this go? How did this
happen? How did we make our President into a monarch? How did this
happen?
How it happened is we gave it up.
James Madison thought we would fight for our power--but no. Right
now, we are just sitting back and watching it happen.
Article II of the Constitution--the President said: Oh, article II
gives me a lot of power.
No, it doesn't. It makes the President Commander in Chief; that is
true. But here is the key sentence in article II of the Constitution,
which defines a President's power. The key sentence is not the power of
the President. The responsibility of the President is to ``take care
that the laws be faithfully executed''--not write the laws, not deny
the laws, not ignore the laws, not pick which laws he or she likes. To
``take care that the laws be faithfully executed''--that is the
responsibility of the President. Right now, those laws are being
ignored.
Impoundment. Impoundment. The President is trying to say: Congress
appropriated this money with an appropriation bill signed by the
President, but I am not going to spend it because I don't like it. I
don't like that purpose, whatever it is.
I am sorry. It is absolutely straight-up unconstitutional, and it is
illegal. President Nixon tried to do that in 1973, and the Congress
virtually unanimously passed the Impoundment Control Act, which said:
No, Presidents can't do that; they can't ignore the will of Congress
because article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the power of
the purse.
We are giving it away this week. We are standing by and watching it,
watching the essential power of this body evaporate--not evaporate--
migrate down the street to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The power was
divided for a reason.

There is some criticism now in the press saying people are talking
about a constitutional crisis; they are crying wolf. No. This is a
constitutional crisis. It is the most serious assault on our
Constitution in the history of this country. It is the most serious
assault on the very structure of our Constitution, which is designed to
protect our freedoms and our liberty, in the history of this country.
It is a constitutional crisis, and I will tell you what makes it
worse: The President and the Vice President are already hinting that
they are not going to obey decisions of the courts.
Many of my friends in this body say: Well, you know, it would be
hard. We don't want to buck the President and everything. We are going
to let the courts take care of this.
No. 1, that is a copout. It is our responsibility to protect the
Constitution. That is what we swear to when we enter this body. But to
stand back and say: Oh, we are going to watch all this happen, and the
courts are going to take care of it--that is an abdication of our
responsibility.
By the way, if you look at history, yes, it is true Presidents have
gained power. In my reading of history, usually it wasn't because
Presidents usurped power but because the Congress abdicated it. We
haven't declared war, for example, since 1942, and yet that is a clear
responsibility of Congress. And we sure have been in some scrapes since
1942. We have abdicated that power. And we are now in the process of
abdicating the power to control the appropriations process.

[[Page S1088]]

I mentioned about DOGE: no authority, no accountability, no
transparency. We literally don't know what they are doing. We can't
find out what they are doing.
Then, just this week, the destruction of the independent Agencies
created by Congress. They were created as independent Agencies for a
reason--because they didn't want them to be dominated by the
vicissitudes of politics.
The President gets to appoint members of the board, and they are very
carefully balanced--not firing someone at the National Labor Relations
Board so there is no quorum so they can't act. That is a direct
violation of congressionally established policy.
These independent Agencies were created for a reason.
Oh, I forgot to mention the illegal firing of inspectors general. The
Senator from Iowa is a champion of inspectors general. In the first few
days, something like 18 inspectors general were fired, completely
contrary to the law. The law is the Congress must be given 30 days'
notice of the firing of an inspector general and reasons therefor. Not
done. Not a peep.
What is it going to take for us to wake up--when I say ``us,'' I mean
this entire body--to wake up to what is going on here? Is it going to
be too late? Is it going to be when the President has accreted all this
power and the Congress is an afterthought? What is it going to take?
The offenses keep piling up.
As I said, leaving it to the courts, No. 1, is a copout. No. 2, when
the Vice President said something--I can't remember exactly what he
said--but why should we--the courts should not have the power to do
this. And, of course, the President, over the weekend, famously quoted
Napoleon: When you are saving your country, you don't have to obey any
law.
Wow. A President of the United States quoting Napoleon about not
having to obey the law.
So I intended to talk about Ukraine, but Senator Tillis and Senator
Shaheen did it so articulately, I think I will let that pass except to
say that it is shameful that we have suddenly pivoted from the support
of a democracy that was grossly and illegally invaded--from the support
of that country to the support of a murderous dictator.
I heard something about Zelenskyy is a dictator. The only dictator in
this game is Vladimir Putin. He is the dictator. And to argue that
somehow Ukraine started the war--what universe is somebody in that
would say something like that?
Again, I won't pursue, but I can tell you, Putin is happy, Xi Jinping
is happy, Iran is happy, and North Korea is happy. They love what is
going on, to see us retreating from the world, whether it is AID or
Ukraine. They love to see us retreating from the world, looking weak
and looking unreliable.
Finally, on this point, we seem to be systematically alienating our
allies. I have been on Armed Services now for 12 years, and I have
learned that the key asymmetric advantage that this country has in the
world is allies. China has customers; we have allies. Well, we are
giving that away. If I wasn't on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I would
use a slightly different term. But we are giving away our asymmetric
advantage in the world by what looks like systematically alienating our
allies, whether it is threats of tariffs or speeches in Europe telling
them what their problems are, basically saying we are going to abandon
Europe.
What a great idea: Abandon Europe at a time when there is a murderous
dictator who has his eyes on the Baltics, on Poland, and who has said
he would like to reestablish the Soviet empire. The worst possible
geopolitical thing that we could do would be to abandon Ukraine.
So this is a constitutional crisis, and we have to respond to it. And
I am just waiting for this whole body to stand up and say: No, no. We
don't do it this way. We don't do it this way. We do things
constitutionally.
Yes, it is more cumbersome. It is slower. That is what the Framers
intended. They didn't intend to have an efficient dictatorship, and
that is what we are headed for. This is a very dangerous moment. We
have to wake up, protect this institution, but much more importantly,
protect the people of the United States of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support the budget resolution
that is before the U.S. Senate. Speaking to that, I want to remind
people of some history.
These famous words came from Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of
Staff. It dates from about 2008. He famously said:

You never want a serious crisis to go away.

There is no statement that better encapsulates the mindset of the
previous administration. We all know Americans are struggling to cope
with economic and social disruption still carrying on from the
pandemic. The Biden administration saw a real opportunity, an
opportunity to permanently increase the size and scope of government.
They said that they wanted to transform America. I hope everybody on
my side of the aisle wants to preserve America. In my view, it makes
sense, in times of national emergency, for government to take steps to
help individuals, families, and small businesses weather that storm.
But once the crisis subsides, so should the programs and spending
enacted in response. Yet here we are in 2025, and Federal spending, as
a share of the economy, remains at levels never seen outside of war or
national emergency like recessions or depressions.
In 2019, before the pandemic, the total Federal spending totaled
$4.45 trillion. In 2024, the Federal Government spent over $2 trillion
more. So that is a total of $6.75 trillion, a relative increase of over
50 percent.
We must begin to put spending back on a path of normalcy, and that is
why we are having this debate that we call the budget resolution. The
path to normalcy is a spending path that accounts for the historic
inflation of the past 4 years as well as population growth.
Now, there are a lot of people in this body that would say that
spending that much is still too much, but I think it fits in with the
principle of the 1974 budget resolution.
Once inflation and population growth are factored in, Federal
spending in 2024 remained roughly $1 trillion above prepandemic levels.
If Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt are set to the
side, Federal spending was still over half a trillion dollars above
2019 levels. I hope you will study the chart here that shows what I
just told you.
Unless we have a course correction, our national debt will set a new
record as a share of our economy in 2028. That is eclipsing the
previous high-water mark set in the wake of World War II. You can see
that here in the period of time where it was at World War II.
As another Democrat said, elections have consequences. So as a part
of the November mandate, President Trump is looking for ways to reduce
wasteful government spending. Through this budget resolution before the
Senate now, we plan to help in that process.
But, in fact, that power should rest here. The President shouldn't
have to do it. But it is Congress that has the power of the purse, and
we will have to do the heavy lifting. Getting out of the fiscal hole
that we dug for ourselves requires that we first stop digging.
The budget that we are debating this week takes that first step, and
some people would say it is too small of a first step. Any new spending
will have to be accomplished by reductions in spending elsewhere. I
look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on a return to
fiscal sanity, and that fiscal sanity is the prepandemic level of
spending increased only by inflation and population growth.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the American people are being robbed in
broad daylight. Big Oil is cashing in on their billion-dollar deal with
Donald Trump from his campaign; the $1 billion to help Trump win. And
in return, he will rig the rules of the game in line with the pockets
of the oil, gas, and coal industry 10 times over.
So let's call Trump's energy agenda what it really is: Oil above all,
not all of the above. Trump's billionaire friends promised to raise
tens of millions of dollars; and, in return, he promised he would
deliver policies that

[[Page S1089]]

will force working families to pay more, inhale more toxic air, and
reduce their kids' chances for a healthier future.
Especially as the climate crisis continues to turbocharge extreme
weather--costing billions in damages, sky-high energy bills--we know
that working families don't have any more to give to the oil, gas, and
coal industries.
Gas prices are up. Electricity bills are up. Home heating costs are
up. And yet Donald Trump is going after the programs, the Agencies, and
the workers that help keep our air and water clean and create jobs.
Meanwhile, Big Oil is raking in record profits, more than $172
billion in profits in 2023 alone. This administration isn't governing,
it is groveling to Big Oil and Big Gas and Big Coal and the entire
fossil fuel industry. Every dollar that goes into a billionaire's
pocket is a dollar taken out of a working family's budget--money that
should go toward food, rent, and education.
It is robbery in broad daylight from working families to create tax
breaks for billionaires, and the Trump administration is trying to
carry out their single biggest heist right now: attempting to illegally
seize $20 billion from the congressionally authorized climate bank. As
we speak, they are trying to loot the climate bank.
This bank, formally called the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, is
based on my national climate bank legislation with Chris Van Hollen,
and it is already at work for you, leveraging private dollars to cut
energy bills for families and small businesses, improve resiliency
against climate change-fueled disasters, and create local economic
opportunity.
Trump and Musk are trying to get their hands on this money--your
money--through whatever means necessary, even if that meant forcing
Denise Cheung, head of the criminal division of the DC U.S. Attorney's
Office, to say that there had been a crime committed in the climate
bank, which then would allow Trump to reclaim all the money in the
climate bank.
What did Denise Cheung say? She said she could not find a crime. They
said: You are going to find a crime. She said she could not find a
crime in the climate bank, and so she had to resign. She had to resign
from being the head of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's
Office right here in Washington, DC, because she refused to follow the
orders of her supervisor who is getting instructions from the White
House because that was the only way they could fulfill the promise to
oil, gas, and coal to kill the climate bank.
They wanted to freeze that money in the absence of any crimes, any
wrongdoing, which--surprise--just happened this week. Just happened.
Their goal is to take money away from families, take money from clean
energy, take money from disadvantaged communities and give it to the
fossil fuel companies and special interests.
So, yes, they want to raid Medicaid; they want to raid education
programs; they want to raid veterans' benefits. But also, for the oil,
gas, and coal industry, they have got to kill the tax breaks for wind
and solar; they have got to gut the climate bank, which is
revolutionizing the way in which we generate energy electricity in this
country.
That is not powerful leadership; it is political plunder. And working
families are paying the price. Trump's farce of an energy emergency
declaration creates a financial emergency for the American people.
Instead of taking steps to lower energy costs for families, the Trump
administration is actively driving up your energy costs by pushing for
our energy, American energy, to get shipped overseas for higher profits
and tying our energy market to the volatility of the global energy
marketplace.
From late 2021 through 2022, surging exports of our energy from the
United States, liquified natural gas cost Americans $111 billion in
higher energy prices for natural gas customers here in the United
States--consumers, homeowners, businesses. Why? Because Big Oil and Big
Gas want to export our energy out of our country, send it overseas
because they get a bigger price on the open seas. That is what it is
all about.
In a recent study, the Department of Energy found that it is
extremely likely LNG exports will lead to more sticker shock for
Americans, an average increase of over $120 per year still coming--
again while oil executives, natural gas executives cash in on even
bigger paydays. What is the Trump plan? Turn consumers in America
upside down and shake money out of their pockets for profits for the
oil and gas industry.
What happens? Prices go higher for consumers here. That is how they
make their money. They are doing it hand in glove with the Trump
administration. This is not an energy emergency. This is a Trump energy
tax on the American people, an energy tax, which, to be clear, is only
growing in severity as Trump cuts off funding for clean energy
projects, fires hardworking government employees, imposes tariffs--all
of which will make electricity even more expensive for American
businesses, for American consumers.
It is a deliberate strategy to make sure working families stay
dependent on a damaging fuel source that makes a handful of
billionaires richer and richer and richer by the day. But make no
mistake, they are not attacking us, because they are winning.
The fossil fuel industry is backing Donald Trump because they know
they are losing. They are losing, despite Trump's attempts to kill the
green revolution. The clean energy boom is happening all across our
country.
The fossil fuel industry is terrified because they know that wind and
solar are the future.
Last year, get this number, are you ready? This is why they are
petrified. This is why they are scared, 90 percent of all new
electricity generation capacity brought online in the United States was
renewable--10 percent natural gas, 90 percent renewable last year.
Why do they have to kill the tax breaks? Why do they have to kill the
climate bank? You do 90 percent renewables every year for the next 10
years, then it drives right at the heart of the business model of the
natural gas and coal and oil industries in our country.
That is why they need to loot the climate bank. That is why they need
to kill the tax breaks for wind and solar, all-electric vehicles in our
country. Onshore wind. Onshore wind and solar power were the cheapest
megawatts on the grid last year, 2024, from construction to operation.
And the Big Oil bosses know that if given the choice, Americans will
pick the cheapest, cleanest energy source every single time. So they
are killing your choice. They are not letting you pick which energy
source you want.
Nearly 80 percent of clean energy investments from the Inflation
Reduction Act, also known as the biggest climate bill in world history,
but 80 percent of the energy investments have gone to Republican
districts, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs just in 2\1/2\
years.
Think about that. Trump is actively working to destroy economic
growth and jobs in the very places that got him elected. Eighty percent
of the jobs are in red States. Think about that. But that is the
payback to the oil, gas, and coal industry for raising the money for
him last year. We are talking about electricians installing solar
panels, construction workers building wind turbines, engineers
designing the next generation of battery storage. All of these are
good-paying, family-sustaining jobs that are helping to build America's
future. And yet--and yet--Trump and his enablers want to tear it all
down just to keep their fossil fuel cronies happy, just to keep the
greenhouse gas emitters happy, just to make sure there is no
competition.
They don't believe in competition. This should be Darwinian paranoia-
inducing competition. What oil, gas, and coal has extracted from this
administration is killing the competition. It is killing them in the
marketplace.
Adam Smith was spinning in his grave thinking about this cut. He had
a big smile on his face last year, Adam Smith. The market is finally
working. We finally have incentives for the competition. But that had
to be killed. That had to be killed.
And if that wasn't enough, Trump is attacking the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the Agency that warns and helps protect
us against hurricanes and floods and wildfires.
Why? Because it gets in the way of his fossil fuel allies' ability to
pollute and to profit without consequence. Just last year, get this
number, disasters supercharged by climate change

[[Page S1090]]

cost the United States more than $500 billion. Hurricanes Milton and
Helene, they cost $300 billion--billion--in damage. The fires in L.A.,
$200 billion. Three incidents, $500 billion worth of damage. Three.
That is all. Half of the defense budget of the United States.
What are they doing? They are taking down the defense in the future
against superstorms. They are going to take it down. They are going to
ravage homeowners, businesses across our country. Insurance rates are
going to skyrocket. It is going to have a devastating impact upon our
country. We are not even through the month of February, and already in
Los Angeles and other places, we can see the storms; we can see the
floods; we can see the damage.
So this is absolutely unbelievable what is happening. Families forced
from their homes. Businesses wiped out. Entire communities devastated.
And instead of preparing for the future, Trump is making sure it gets
worse. Imagine, standing in the wreckage of a hurricane-ravaged
neighborhood, with nothing but rubble left of your home, and knowing
that your President, right now, is actively choosing to make future
disasters worse and firing the workers that would help you rebuild.
That is the cruelty of his administration.
It has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil, gas, and coal
industry, giving them a permission slip to wreak havoc on every other
American. At every turn, this administration is picking fossil fuel
billionaires over working people, and they aren't even hiding it.
Since April of last year after Trump sat down with the Big Oil
executives and asked for a billion-dollar campaign check, these
executives' wealth has ballooned by more than $40 billion in 1 year,
$40 billion more in the wealth of those individuals, while families
across the country wonder how they will pay their heating bills.
Trump's fossil fuel donors are making a fortune. And let's not forget
the bigger picture. Our global standing is on the line. While we stall
and we let the fossil fuel industry dictate our energy policy, China is
surging ahead. China is saying: Thank you, Trump administration. Thank
you for letting us take over the renewable energy industry.
They are investing in clean energy, in electric vehicles, in battery
storage--in all the industries that will define the 21st century
economy. And what is Trump doing? Kneecapping our ability to compete.
He is locking us into outdated, expensive, and polluting energy
systems, while the rest of the world moves forward without us. You
can't be an isolationist when it comes to climate change; it is global
warming.
This isn't just about energy policy. This is about what kind of
country we want to be. Will we be the leader or the laggard? Do we want
to be a country that builds, innovates, and transforms, or do we want
to be a country that clings to the past and knowingly raises costs on
American families that pollute the air we breathe in order to line the
pockets of the ultrawealthy? The choice is ours.
Trump and his fossil fuel friends want you to believe that you don't
have a choice; that you have to accept higher prices, dirtier air,
polluted water, and an onslaught of hurricanes and fires brought on by
a worsening climate crisis that the President of the United States,
Donald Trump, denies even exists, calling it a Chinese hoax. It is no
hoax. Three events, $500 billion worth of damage, and I am not even
mentioning all the other damage last year and early this year, but
there were.
People want lower bills, not higher profits for Exxon. Our
communities deserve good-paying jobs, not another handout to Chevron.
It is not drill, baby, drill. It is plug in, baby, plug in. That is
what this generation of young people want: plug into the electric
revolution, plug into the nonpolluting future.

We have a choice. We can fight for lower costs, good jobs, and a
livable future. We can invest in the industries of tomorrow instead of
getting locked into the polluting past. We can stop exporting American
fossil fuels abroad and driving up our own prices for our own consumers
here in America. We can ban fossil fuel executives and lobbyists from
being able to use our energy-related Agencies for their own personal
pocketbooks or, as I call for in my ``BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act,''
they can't work; they can't work for the Energy Department. They can't
be inside taking over the agenda. We can strengthen the low-income
heating and cooling relief program so that the poorest Americans don't
have to put so much of their paycheck toward heating and cooling.
We can safeguard energy efficiency standards for appliances so that
people pay less on their bills. We can do that. We can remove the tax
loopholes that prevent the oil and gas companies from paying their fair
share.
We are talking about tax breaks for oil companies that have been on
the books for 100 years. They call creating a climate bank socialism.
What do you call 100 years of tax breaks for the oil, gas, and coal
industry? That is socialism. That is allowing for a noncompetitive
marketplace.
So the new technologies, the clean technologies, solar and wind,
electric battery technologies, they can't be deployed. We can remove
those tax breaks. That is what we should be debating here.
But at a minimum, we can't take away the competition. They are
monopolists. They are all oligopolists. That is all it is. They want to
stifle new technology. They don't have any new ideas, except making
themselves rich.
If Republicans are here tonight looking for revenue to pay for the
things that they want to pay for, let's start with ending those tax
breaks now and having oil companies finally pay their fair share.
Ultimately, we can stand up to the corporate greed that is bleeding
working families dry and demand a future where energy policy serves the
people, not just the powerful. And that is exactly what we are going to
do because the clean energy revolution isn't just coming; it is already
here. And it is scaring the living daylights out of the oil, gas, and
coal industry. They are petrified.
It is happening in red States, 80 percent, and blue States. It is
lowering costs, creating jobs, making communities stronger. No amount
of corruption, no amount of grift, no amount of fossil fuel money is
going to stop it, and we are not going to back down. And we will not
allow the Trump administration to sell out the American people,
especially young people. We are not going to allow their future to get
sold out. We are not going to surrender the way the oil, gas, and coal
industry wants us to surrender because this is not about the highest
bidder who can loot the programs like the National Climate Bank to pay
for their billionaire tax breaks.
We will fight for the workers building America's clean energy future.
We will fight for all families, ensuring they have lower energy bills,
cleaner air. And we will fight for a livable future, not just for
ourselves but for all coming children and grandchildren right now.
This is not just a political fight; it is a moral fight. This is
about justice. This is about fairness. This is about the very future of
our country. We cannot back down now. This is the time. This is the
place. We must wage this battle on behalf of the coming generations or
else the devastation will become catastrophically unimaginable.
So let's have this fight this year about our future. I think that is
the least we owe to the young people in our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have two unanimous consent requests. I
ask unanimous consent that for the duration of S. Con. Res. 7, the
budget resolution for fiscal year 2025, the majority and the Democratic
managers of the resolution, while seated or standing at the managers'
desk, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit
documents, and send email and other data communications from text
displayed on a wireless personal assistance device and tablet devices.
I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be
permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution;
further, that the staff be permitted to make technical

[[Page S1091]]

and conforming changes to the resolution, if necessary, consistent with
amendments adopted during Senate consideration, including calculating
the associated change in the net interest function and incorporating
the effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for
Federal revenue, the amount by which the Federal revenue should be
changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt
and debt held by the public.
Further, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, prior to each vote during consideration of S. Con. Res. 7.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

S. Con. Res. 7

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the rhetoric of Donald Trump and Republicans
on the budget is all over the map. Here is what is important to know.
Republicans want $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, primarily for the richest
Americans, paid for with sharp cuts in programs that help average
Americans and the most vulnerable in our society.
Yesterday, I spoke on the floor about one of the most cynical parts
of this resolution: gutting healthcare for children, seniors, and
Americans with disabilities through extreme cuts to Medicaid and the
Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.
Donald Trump said that Medicaid and Medicare would be off limits, but
the budgets put out by Republicans indicate something quite different.
During the debate on this budget, Republicans will have the
opportunity to vote on amendments to show where they stand, and, more
importantly, who they stand with--everyday Americans or the roughly 750
billionaires in the United States. That is the stakes--hundreds of
millions of nurses, firefighters, office workers, systems
administrators, salespeople, and their children versus the interests of
roughly 750 people whose wealth grows by millions every single day.
Ripping health coverage away from Americans may be the worst part of
this budget, but it is far from the only bad provision. Instead, this
budget is part of a broader decision by President Trump and
congressional Republicans to force American families to pay more for
food, healthcare, and education--again, all so the wealthiest Americans
can get a huge tax break.
The ``big, beautiful bill'' that Donald Trump favors is expected to
gut Medicaid by at least $880 billion dollars. The cuts would be
devastating for the 80 million Americans who rely on Medicaid and CHIP,
who are almost entirely children, seniors, people with disabilities,
and working men and women who depend upon Medicaid protection. Forcing
struggling Americans to pay more for health insurance or to lose health
coverage altogether is heartless policy and a slap in the face to the
millions of families who are struggling to make ends meet.
And yet Medicaid is not the only target in this resolution. Food for
the dinner table is also on the chopping block with cuts of reportedly
at least $230 billion to SNAP. Each of us has seen news reports about
the long lines at food pantries in our States. Who hasn't heard that
the price of eggs is up 15 percent in the last month alone? Who doesn't
remember, also, the campaign promise of Donald Trump to bring grocery
prices down on the first day of his term?
Yet here we are with a Trump-backed bill that makes groceries even
more expensive for 42 million Americans who qualify for SNAP. Gutting
this program, the SNAP program, doesn't lower prices, but it sure will
increase the problem of hunger in the richest country in the world.
Put simply, President Trump's ``big, beautiful bill'' is forcing
vulnerable American families to pay more for food and healthcare. Such
policies directly contradict the President's campaign promise that
``starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America
affordable again.
Republicans can't dodge the truth: $880 billion in Medicaid cuts and
$230 billion in SNAP cuts will mean more kids go hungry, more seniors
can't afford lifesaving treatment, and more households are forced into
poverty.
The budget resolution's cost-raising trifecta ends with higher
education costs. Instead of making college more affordable and offering
young Americans more pathways to prosperity, this Republican budget
will increase the cost of student loans and cut other programs that
help Americans offset the costs of education.
Education cuts come at, perhaps, the worst time. Most jobs that
provide living wages require some postsecondary education or training.
A college education, which has long been a ticket to the middle class,
is now too expensive for too many families. Meanwhile, the main source
of government higher education aid for low- and moderate-income
families, the Pell grant, has lost most of its purchasing power. At its
peak in 1975 and 1976, the Pell grant--named after my predecessor,
Senator Claiborne Pell--covered more than 75 percent of the cost of
attendance at a public 4-year college. Today, it covers less than 30
percent.
Unsurprisingly, over 40 million Americans now have student loan debt,
which prevents them, in many cases, from purchasing a home or moving to
areas where they might be able to use their talents more effectively,
and has many other consequences.
Forcing Americans to pay even more for college makes higher education
less attainable, weakens our labor force, and will have long-term
repercussions for American families, American prosperity, and American
security.
Now, many Americans may be wondering: What is the point of all of
these cuts?
It is not about reforming programs. There has been no serious cost-
benefit analysis of any of these programs. All they have looked at is,
What does it cost, and how can we use that money to fund taxes?
That is not government reform. That is not wise government. That is
just ripping off most Americans to satisfy 750 billionaires.
And it is not even about reducing the deficit. As I said, it is just
about unlocking a fast-track way to reward the wealthiest Americans--
some of whom are now in the Trump administration.
Republicans have been pretty clear. The central purpose of their
budget is to permanently extend the failed 2017 Trump tax bill, which
was an unpopular giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. Nearly half of
the benefits from extending the Trump tax bill will flow just to the
richest Americans, those earning $450,000 or more each year.
President Trump promised on the campaign trail that ``starting on day
one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again.'' But we
are now on day 32, and costs have not come down. In fact, inflation hit
3 percent for the first time in months this January, and the President
took no action while egg prices hit record highs--a particular point of
pain for many families.
And just like this budget resolution, the President has been intent
on forcing families to pay more, not less, for everyday goods. In just
1 month, the President has implemented or threatened tariff taxes on
nearly every item imaginable.
Nonpartisan experts are clear: These tariff taxes will not ``make
America affordable again.'' The Peterson Institute projects the tariff
taxes on Canada, Mexico, and China alone would cost U.S. households
$1,200 a year--a tariff tax. Yale researchers have found the
President's threat to place reciprocal tariffs on our trading partners
would cost families $2,600. Analysts at the investment bank Jefferies
projects car prices will jump by $2,700 under the President's Canada
and Mexico tariffs, while the National Association of Home Builders
found President Trump's lumber tariffs during his first term--which he
promised to raise again--in his first term, raised housing prices by
$9,000, and he still wants to do it again.
We have also heard a lot about Mr. Musk's DOGE and fraud, waste, and
abuse, but that operation doesn't seem to be about preventing fraud,
waste, and abuse, or lowering costs.
By the way, if you were really interested in eliminating waste,
fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, why would you fire all the
inspectors general? They are independent agents who are charged
specifically to root out waste and corruption in the Federal

[[Page S1092]]

Government. President Trump did that. So this is not about getting rid
of waste or anything else. Again, it is finding trillions of dollars to
give away to rich Americans.
In fact, the other aspect of DOGE is just to create mayhem to impact
so much of government: firing responsible staffers who are handling key
issues, weapons--nuclear weapons.
I was in the airport, on Monday evening, flying down from Providence,
and a young lady came up to me and said she was fired a few days ago
from the National Nuclear Security Administration because she was a
probationary hire. But guess what. When they discovered that they could
not protect nuclear weapons--not do sensitive maintenance on them so
that they would be ready for deterrence--she was suddenly called back.
Not very smart.
DOGE is also trying to fire researchers who are out to cure
Alzheimer's disease, trying to get rid of experts who fight bird flu,
and seeking access to computer systems at the IRS and the Social
Security Administration--which contain personal and financial
information for each and every single American.
I don't think most Americans want Elon Musk to know all of their
financial information, their personal information, maybe even
healthcare information. But that could happen.
It is not combating fraud, all of these things. In fact, it is close
to--particularly with the IRS information--committing fraud.
Indeed, the budget resolution we will vote on tonight is just further
evidence that Republicans and President Trump have no plan and no real
interest in lowering costs for families, and I think that is wrong.
Now, I am all for tax cuts, but it should be tax cuts for the middle
class, tax cuts for those struggling with high prices, and tax cuts for
small businesses, not 750 billionaires. Forcing regular Americans to
cover tax cuts to the richest Americans is not the sort of economic
policy we should be pursuing in the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to rethink which Americans deserve their
support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, starting last week, the Trump
administration began firing hundreds of Federal Aviation Administration
employees. Today, we had a hearing in the Commerce Committee to talk
about what kind of a key Deputy Secretary we need at the DOT, and we
asked questions about this.
But what is perplexing is, while the American people were watching in
horror as a Delta Airlines plane flipped over on the Toronto runway,
President Trump was focused instead on purging dedicated FAA employees
from the Federal workforce, something that I believe makes us less safe
in the skies. Among those fired were aeronautical information
specialists, legal instrument examiners, telecommunication
specialists--all of whom played a key role in supporting the work of
air traffic controllers.
In fact, there was a story today in Politico. The headline is, ``Air
traffic controllers cannot do their work without us.'' That is a quote
from the article. And inside the article, a statement, reading from the
article, ``One of the people last week let go was an aeronautical
information specialist, a member of a team outside Washington whose job
it was to create maps and highways in the sky, the pre-planned routes
that pilots control and controllers use to guide airplanes.''
So it is very perplexing that we have had these accidents, and now,
we have an administration that wants to cut people at the FAA. This
headline here refers to the fact that the last Trump administration
actually blocked safety rules, and that is what today's Commerce
hearing was about for the No. 2 person at the Department of
Transportation, the people that served in the first Trump
administration, and why did they block these safety rules?
In fact, some of these safety rules, which would have required
manufacturers to have better safety, were written and proposed by the
FAA--but when the Trump administration came in and then 9 days after
the first MAX crash--somehow, the rule that was set to move forward was
pulled.
So now, we are seeing an administration that is being, in my mind,
thoughtless to the incidents that we have now seen in aviation and
saying it is okay to cut people at the FAA. I disagree.
The administration has said that it is no big deal because it is 1
percent of the workforce. Now, I know the objective is to give a $4
trillion tax break to corporations and ultrawealthy people, but I don't
understand how making the skies less safe helps you in that agenda. It
doesn't. The individual lives and safety of the American people are
worth way more.
These people that got fired are not just a bunch of junior hires,
no--one news report stated that ``More than 130 of those eliminated
held jobs that directly or indirectly support the air traffic
controllers. They support the facilities and the technologies they use
to keep the planes and their passengers safe.''
So you are going to tell me that a telecommunication specialist who
supports the maintenance of key communications technology used by
controllers is not important to aviation safety?
Are you going to tell me that the legal instrument examiners who
ensure that the pilots are medically fit to fly are not important to
aviation safety? Are you going to tell me that the air traffic
controllers--the same workers that originally were not exempted from
the administration's hiring freeze, but then, only after the fatal
collision at DCA put a spotlight on the issue, they finally exempted
controllers from the freeze.
Most astonishing of all, though, is that the administration has let
go of aeronautical information specialists who evaluate and prepare
navigational charts and helicopter routes used by both controllers and
pilots.
Now, we have just had this midair collision in the DCA area, and what
was it about? A route that didn't seem to be a decision somebody had
made to let these planes fly too close together? Made no sense.
How did that route get approved? Who at the FAA said it was a good
idea to allow the Department of Defense to fly in the same air space as
a plane landing on runway 33 at DCA airport?
So mapping helicopter routes in a busy air space, I think, is
critically important--and not somebody who should have been fired this
week from a job.
Our aviation system is not a place where you can shortchange workers.
This SMS rule proves it. This rule, which would have mandated that
manufacturers of aviation implement a Safety Management System,
constantly approving on analytical basis, is critical information about
how to maintain safety. But it never got implemented.
So I am concerned that an administration that in the previous Trump
years thwarted the safety rule and now is firing people at the FAA
after these crashes are going to continue to erode the aviation safety
net.
Surprisingly, after the helicopter crash with the CRJ from American
Airlines--there was a lot of discussion about how and why a military
helicopter would be in the same space as a CRJ regional jet trying to
land in DCA from Kansas. One of the questions asked was, why was there
not this Next Generation technology that would allow the helicopter to
be detected? This included a DOD helicopter in the DCA collision
incident.
The issue is that the controllers needed this information, but in an
exemption done in the Trump administration, gave them an exemption to
do this. And this week, we find out in a letter that they never, ever
use ADS-B as a way to help us in our navigation safety.
Air traffic controllers themselves know that these firings are anti-
safety. Ken Greenwood, a constituent of mine in Washington State, who
is a former air traffic controller, wrote me on Sunday about how
important these workers are. According to him, he said, ``These
technicians and engineers maintain every piece of equipment that keeps
our flying public safe, keeps radars and instrument landing to air
traffic controllers on automation. FAA technicians undergo years of
specialized training to maintain critical missions and systems and
cannot be replaced quickly. In the 35 years since I began my controller
career, we have

[[Page S1093]]

never, never had a surplus of technicians or engineers.
``To the contrary, it's a challenge to keep them in these jobs. Once
our aviation system infrastructure is compromised, it takes decades to
take it back, and money will not be saved and lives may be lost.''
I thank Mr. Greenwood for his service. I hope the administration is
listening. I hope that you figure out now is not this time to
shortchange aviation. Unfortunately, right now, we don't even have a
confirmed FAA Administrator. They are critical to this job. We had a
strong Administrator, Mike Whitaker, who was confirmed 98-0 by this
body. But that didn't matter to Elon Musk, who went after Administrator
Whitaker because he dared to fine SpaceX for not following the rules,
and as a result, the FAA now does not have an Administrator at one of
its most critical points in decades.
All the firing of employees and dangling resignations and trying to
get people to resign to save money to give a tax break of $4 trillion
to corporations and the ultrawealthy is not what we should be doing.
We should be working hard on aviation safety. We should not be
rolling back safety rules. We should be enforcing safety rules and
implementing them as fast as we can that says this body, this body
knows that aviation safety is a priority.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Ukraine

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I returned from Ukraine earlier this week, where I saw both the
suffering that the Ukrainian people have endured over the past 3 years
at Putin's hand and the courage they have forged to save their country
and their children--the suburban town of Bucha, where Russian troops
tortured and massacred hundreds of civilians in the first day of
Putin's unprovoked invasion; the shattered children's hospital Putin's
missiles nearly destroyed; apartment buildings in central Kyiv struck
by Putin's drones; and lawyers searching for the thousands of Ukrainian
children who have been kidnapped from their parents by Russian
soldiers.
By most estimates, at least 40,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed
in battle and another 380,000 have been wounded since Putin's invasion.
A draft of the general population in that country means that war has
scarred nearly every neighborhood in this massive country. In
cemeteries all across Ukraine, fresh graves piled with dirt and flowers
testify to their sacrifice. At least 12,000 civilians have been killed.
Amid this torment, the Ukrainian people continue to send troops to
the front in the dead of winter and to mobilize to keep their
businesses and their homes and their kids in school. They did not ask
for Putin's thuggish invasion.
From the very beginning, our intelligence Agencies have told us
something that Putin never has understood--that the Ukrainian people
will never submit to him; that if every weapon were denied them, they
would fight with sticks and stones and their bare hands to protect
their country from any invading tyrant but especially from Vladimir
Putin of Russia.
Fortunately for Ukraine and for the rest of the free world, they have
not had to fight this invasion with their bare hands. The American
people have steadfastly supported them. We have sent $66 billion in
military aid and $51 billion in nonmilitary aid. That is a lot of
money, but it represents just 0.52 percent of our GPD. Unlike the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq, not a single American soldier has been sent to
fight.
Our European allies have stepped up as well. Together, they have
actually committed more than the United States. But their sums
represent a much larger percentage of their economy--which makes sense
because they are closer to the danger that Russia poses. At the same
time, even farther allies, like Australia and Japan, continue to
support Ukraine as well.
Our allies and our partners know the stakes of this war. They know
that supporting Ukraine means standing with people that are willing to
fight for the country they love. They know that rolling over to Putin
will embolden other dictators around the world, especially Xi Jinping
of China.
The rest of us may not need this reminder, but the people sitting at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue apparently do since they seem to be the only
ones in the free world who do not understand the stakes of this war.
Over the last few days, President Trump has chosen the side of
tyranny of Putin, of Xi, and profoundly undermined our national
security. Like someone reading Russian Twitter bots, he deliberately
and falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war. He called Zelenskyy--
the freedom fighter who is leading the fight in Ukraine--a dictator.
Mr. President, he invited Russia to rejoin the G7, a group of the
world's most powerful democracies that has met regularly since the
1970s and which threw out Russia after Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Before negotiations have even started, President Trump's Secretary of
Defense, Pete Hegseth, took Ukraine's potential NATO membership off the
table. And just this week, the Trump administration held talks with
Russia in Saudi Arabia without the decency of even inviting Ukraine to
the table. It pains me to say it, but our old colleague Secretary of
State Marco Rubio even suggested that the United States should lift
sanctions on and bolster economic collaboration with Russia while
Russia shells civilians in Ukraine.
Some of our Republican colleagues believe that it doesn't matter what
President Trump says, only what he does; that it doesn't matter when he
says that he is going to send American troops to Gaza or seize the
Panama Canal or falsely accuses Ukraine of starting this war. But a
President's words matter more than most, and President Trump's harmful
words and policies will only embolden Putin. They will further convince
Putin that he is winning, that time is on his side, and that he has no
reason to accept a peace deal that is anything less than overwhelmingly
favorable to his maximalist desire.
In literally every one of his comments on Ukraine, President Trump
has undermined our national security. Every time he opens his mouth, he
weakens our bargaining position and makes the world more dangerous.
We all want this war to end. On that, the President and I agree. But
for the sake of Ukraine and the sake of the free world, it must only
end with a just and enduring peace.

While the United States and our allies and Ukraine work together to
establish the terms of the peace and get ready to negotiate with Putin,
the Ukrainians are going to have to keep fighting throughout this
winter season--this freezing winter--where the civilian population is
just doing everything they can to keep their houses and their
businesses and their schools warm and livable. The Ukrainian soldiers
are not asking to be relieved of this terrible burden. They are
embracing it because they know that any cease-fire without meaningful
security guarantees will allow Putin to rebuild his weakened army and
attack again and again and again.
Obviously--obviously--everyone in this Chamber knows that any
meaningful negotiation has to include Ukraine. Doing anything else, as
the Trump administration just did in Saudi Arabia, would be an insult
to the memory of every soldier who has laid down their life in this
war.
I cannot claim to know Donald Trump well. It is obvious that I deeply
regret his election, but I don't blame him for winning the election. He
beat my party, the Democratic Party, badly in two elections. He even
found a way to get elected after he was the first President in American
history to take away a fundamental civil right from the American
people--a woman's right to choose. He still got elected again. That is
extraordinary, and it is a testament, I am sorry to say, to the
Democratic Party's weaknesses and to his own skills and talents,
particularly in this era.
I don't doubt that his experience as a reality TV star taught him
things that helped him get elected. I am much less certain, however,
that his checkered commercial real estate background prepared him to
negotiate a hotel deal with Vladimir Putin, much less a deal that
concerns the fate of the free world.
Donald Trump is not the only person with private sector experience in
our

[[Page S1094]]

government. I can tell you from my experience from working in Denver,
when someone is having a negotiation who has deal fever, you can see
it. You can smell it when they are so desperate for a deal on any
terms. The people who I negotiated with in Denver had a lot more
discipline than that. We told each other that we would never agree to
any deal that hadn't cratered at least three times, because that was
the only way you could tell whether you were getting the best deal. If
you didn't have the guts to walk away, you were never going to get the
best deal that you could.
I have never seen a worse case of deal fever than Donald Trump's
approach to the coming negotiation with Vladimir Putin. Never in my
life have I seen it, and it has never been more important. I doubt the
world has seen such an ill-conceived pursuit of negotiation since the
infamous 1938 Munich Agreement in which the UK and France and Italy
allowed Nazi Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia. The damage he is
doing is not only that we will get a worse deal; it is that we will
undermine Ukraine's position on the frontlines. Without security
guarantees from the United States and from Europe, Putin will only bide
his time, regroup, and invade again.
After the fictions that President Trump has spewed about who started
this war, not to mention the chorus of defeatism from his Vice
President, his Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National
Intelligence, does anyone--does anybody--including Putin and Xi
Jinping, doubt what would happen if Putin invaded again? This is less
the ``Art of the Deal,'' I am afraid, than it is the ``art of defeat.''
After all of these years, after all of these battles, it would be truly
pathetic for the United States, the world's most powerful country, to
accept a fever-induced deal with Russia, like the Munich Agreement.
Look it up--not, perhaps, on Twitter but in your much more reliable
10th grade Western civ textbook. After that deal, Hitler did not stop
at Czechoslovakia but continued his war on Europe. Left unchecked,
Putin will do the same thing, as Putin's propagandists have told us
repeatedly.
To make matters worse, anyone concerned about Beijing's potential
takeover of Taiwan knows that there will be no better test of how the
free world will respond to Xi's potential invasion than how we respond
to Putin. Come to think of it, if China does invade Taiwan, how would
we evaluate the leadership capacity of an American President who
claimed that it was Taiwan who had invaded China, not the other way
around? That is the level of duplicity that we are seeing from Donald
Trump right now.
So why the deal fever? That is a good question. President Trump's
aspiration for a Nobel Peace Prize is well known. He can hang it next
to his gold-plated faucets and his first editions of the ``Art of the
Deal.'' But if he heard from people in this Chamber, even he might
think twice if he understood that walking down this path of appeasement
makes him more likely to be remembered like Neville Chamberlain.
Negotiations can end this war in a just manner only if Ukraine can
negotiate them from a place of strength.
The American people have been incredibly generous in our support of
Ukraine, but, even so, this war has cost us less than 0.6 percent of
our GDP while allowing us to send Ukraine old weapons when we invest in
our own cutting-edge replacements, permitting us to learn from
Ukraine's extraordinary innovation on the frontlines and its world-
class use of new warfighting technologies, such as drones, and boosting
our economy without costing a single American soldier's life.
We and our European allies have to continue surging military
assistance to Ukraine, not forever but so Ukraine is best positioned to
make this deal not just for Ukraine but for us and for free countries
all over the world. Contrary to what many people believed at the outset
of this war and what President Trump apparently believes today, Putin's
invasion of Ukraine has been costly to him--very costly to him. Three
years of the Ukrainian peoples' tenacity and courage have degraded the
Russian military. As we speak, Russia is losing twice the number of
soldiers every month as Putin's war continues. In total, Putin has
squandered more than $200 billion and suffered a staggering 700,000 in
casualties at the hands of Ukrainian patriots. It is three times the
number of soldiers Russia lost in Afghanistan--a country famously
regarded as the graveyard of empires.
We didn't ask for this war, neither did Ukraine, but Putin is in a
weaker position to threaten Europe today than when he first swung his
iron fist at the Ukrainian people. The last thing we should do now is
weaken our negotiating position when we and Europe have so much at
stake--when the world has so much at stake.
Putin believes he can beat Ukraine not because he thinks Ukrainians
are weak but because he thinks we are weak, and he thinks President
Trump is a pushover and a sucker. At the beginning of his invasion of
Ukraine, Putin, who was surrounded as tyrants are and as dictators are
by yes-men who are scared to tell them the truth about their own
weaknesses and, in this case, Russia's weaknesses, made three
fundamental miscalculations going into the war.

One was about the strength of his own army. He had invested billions
of dollars planning for the invasion, but much of it was siphoned off
because of Russia's endemic corruption.
The second miscalculation was about the Ukrainian people's patriotism
and willingness to fight to the death. No matter how President Trump
tries to undermine this sacrifice, the honor roll of history will
forever--will forever--record Ukraine's courage.
Putin's third miscalculation was that the world would roll over and
allow him to invade his peaceful neighbor. Unlike the other two
mistakes, he had evidence for the final point. After all, when he began
his invasion in 2014 by lawlessly sending his ``little green men'' to
occupy Crimea, which is part of Ukraine, the world did nothing. The
United States did nothing. He thought the world would do nothing when
he invaded again.
It turned out, unlike Putin, we actually learned from our mistake.
The free world has stood up to Putin this time around. We have supplied
arms and other support while the Ukrainian people have died on the
frontline of their country and for the West. Their cemeteries are
bulging with fresh graves. They have earned the free world's support.
But even more important to us and our allies, we have protected our
national security and affirmed our commitment to the post-World War II
rules-based international order. How this ends will determine whether
that order persists and whether the United States continues to provide
the leadership our parents and grandparents supplied since World War
II. World War II was another war started by a tyrant, but it was ended
by the world's democracies.
Many Americans inside this Chamber and outside understand the stakes.
They know, as Ronald Reagan proclaimed 40 years ago, in advancing
freedom, Americans carry a special burden: a belief in the dignity of
man and that freedom is America's core and that we should never deny it
nor forsake it. This is what we risk today by withdrawing our support
of Ukraine. We will abandon both the Ukrainian people and the core of
what America stands for, and we cannot do it.
This is personal for me and so many of us. My mom was born a Jew in
Warsaw in 1938. She and her parents and an aunt were the only ones who
survived the Holocaust. The Nazis killed everyone else in her family.
Authoritarian aggression left an indelible mark on my family and
countless other families in Ukraine and Poland in the 1930s and 1940s,
where Stalin and Hitler killed together 16 million human beings. These
victims of fascism died, believing that they were invisible to the rest
of the world, forgotten people in unforgettable years.
The lesson I learned from my mom is that the United States can never
let that happen again by trying to appease a dictator the way that
Chamberlain did. That is not apocryphal, or a made-up story. I had
dinner last night with my mom. She is 86 years old. She can't believe
that she has lived long enough--I am happy that she has, but she can't
believe that she has lived long enough to see another tyrant's invasion
of their peaceful, democratic European neighbor. But she hasn't

[[Page S1095]]

lived long enough to forget her generation's searing lessons. She knows
the eternal truth--that the greatest enemy of fascism is man.
Even if President Trump continues to ignore reality, my mother and
millions of Americans who make up the ``greatest generation''
understand the United States has a special responsibility.
It has always been far too easy for some in high office to ignore
their moral responsibility to people sacrificing their lives a
continent away on behalf of our shared values and interests. History
occasionally records their names--like Chamberlain's--in blood.
It is particularly easy today to play to self-defeating isolationist
tendencies in the daily headlines, to make rash comments that are
foolish and unpatriotic and that Russian trolls spread like wildfire
across social media platforms. It is far too easy to do the wrong
thing. It always has been.
It is a lot harder, but necessary, for the living to stand for
freedom and democracy and those willing to give the last measure of
themselves for those eternal values. At this moment, the United States
is the only country who can lead the free world against these
dictators, against these tyrants.
The Americans who serve in this Chamber must fulfill our
responsibility to the American people and demand the President fulfill
his patriotic responsibility in the days ahead. Everything now is in
our hands. The moment demands that the United States of America lead--
for the sake of the Ukrainian people, for our own national security,
and for democracy around the world. Our failure will not just be
damaging; it will be devastating.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we live in difficult times, in times
where people throughout our country are experiencing a great deal of
anxiety for a number of reasons. And in the midst of all of that, it is
important that we not forget what is taking place not only in Ukraine
but back home here in the United States.
And back home, right now, tens of millions of Americans are
struggling economically to keep their heads above water. Mr. President,
60 percent of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, 85 million
are uninsured or underinsured, and we have the highest rate of
childhood poverty of almost any major nation on Earth.
And as someone who has visited senior centers throughout the State of
Vermont and has spoken to seniors throughout our country, I can tell
you that there is a significant level of fear and anxiety among the
older people in this country with regard to what is happening right
here in DC. When we have a President of the United States and
Republicans who are talking about massive cuts to Medicaid, let's
understand--and seniors do understand--that we are not just talking
about throwing millions of kids off the healthcare that they have at a
time when we are the only major country not to provide healthcare to
all people--not just kids off their healthcare, we are talking about
massive cuts to community health centers, which receive over 40 percent
of their funding from Medicaid and where millions of seniors go to get
the primary care they need.
And at a time when we already have a major crisis in nursing home
availability, let us understand that Medicaid provides funding for two
out of every three seniors who live in nursing homes. In other words,
massive cuts to Medicaid would be a disaster for senior citizens
throughout this country.
But it is not just Medicaid cuts that worry our seniors. Today, quite
unbelievably--and we don't talk about this anywhere near enough--25
percent of people in our country who are 65 years of age or older are
trying to survive on incomes of $15,000 a year or less. I myself do not
know how anybody, let alone a senior with healthcare needs, can survive
on $15,000 a year, but that is what 25 percent of our seniors are
trying to do.
Mr. President, this issue of so many seniors struggling to get by,
struggling to heat their homes, struggling to buy the food or the
prescription drugs they need, this is an issue we must address, and it
is a crisis that is unacceptable in the richest country in the history
of the world.
That is why I am proud to tell you that within the next several
weeks, I, along with a number of cosponsors, will be introducing
legislation that expands Social Security benefits and extends the
solvency of Social Security for decades.
We are hearing a lot of talk about cutting Social Security. We should
not be talking about cutting Social Security; we must be talking about
expanding Social Security benefits. And the legislation that I will
introduce would do just that. It would expand Social Security benefits
by $2,400 a year, and it would not raise taxes by one penny on the
bottom 93 percent of Americans, those who make less than $250,000 a
year.

And how do we do that? By lifting the cap at applying the Social
Security payroll tax on all income above $250,000. Unbelievably, under
current law, a billionaire pays the same amount of money into Social
Security as someone who makes $176,000 a year. Elon Musk, worth $400
billion, pays the same amount into Social Security as somebody who
makes $176,000. That is because, under Social Security, there is an
absurd cap on taxable income. If we lifted that cap and made sure that
millionaires and billionaires paid the same percentage of their income
into Social Security as the working class of this country, we could
extend the life of Social Security for generations to come and lift
millions of seniors out of poverty.
Further, when we talk about the needs of senior citizens in this
country, I want to mention that I will also be introducing legislation
to expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing. It is
unacceptable that millions of seniors are unable to read a newspaper
because they cannot afford eyeglasses, can't have conversations with
their grandchildren because they can't afford hearing aids, and have
trouble eating because they cannot afford dentures. That should not be
happening in the United States of America in the year 2025.
Expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing is an
extremely popular concept. Poll after poll shows that 80 percent of the
American people--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--support doing
just that.
Mr. President, when we talk about the anxieties that the American
people are now experiencing, it is not just, to say the least, senior
citizens. All across this country, there is a growing fear that the
Trump administration is undermining the Constitution of our country, a
Constitution which has kept us a free nation, an example, a model for
the rest of the world for the last 250 years.
During the last month alone, President Trump has attempted to usurp
the powers of Congress, illegally and unconstitutionally refusing to
fund programs passed by Congress. He has illegally destroyed agencies
like USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that were
created by Congress. And under the leadership of Mr. Musk, they have
illegally and inappropriately gained access to tax data and Social
Security data of millions of Americans, et cetera, et cetera. Every
day, they are acting in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.
And I would say this--and I don't know if people take it seriously or
not; I do--just this week, President Trump tweeted:

He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.

Wow. In other words, Mr. Trump sees himself, the President of the
United States, as above the law and immune from the basic rules of the
Constitution and the separation of powers that have governed this
country since the founding.
Hey, anything I want to do--I am President--I can do it. It doesn't
matter what Congress says. It doesn't matter what the Constitution
says. It doesn't matter what the rule of law is about. Hey, I am the
President. I am trying to save the country. I don't need to hear from
anybody else.
That is not what Americans fought and died to preserve. That is not
what this country is about.
And with regard to the movement toward authoritarianism, let me say a
few words about an area that I think has not gotten much attention at
all, and that is Trump's attack on the free press, which is protected
by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers of
this country considered freedom of speech and free

[[Page S1096]]

press to be enormously important. That was the First Amendment.
Mr. Trump has sued CBS and its parent company, Paramount, for $20
billion because he didn't like how they edited an interview with Vice
President Kamala Harris. The company is now reportedly considering
settling the lawsuit--and I certainly hope they do not do that--out of
fear of retaliation from Trump's FCC.
He did not like a television program on CBS. Well, many of us don't
like television programs on CBS or NBC or FOX or ABC, but you don't sue
somebody for $20 billion because you didn't like the program. And,
obviously, the intention of that lawsuit is clear, and that is that CBS
and every other network and media outlet will now have to look over
their shoulder: Oh, my goodness, we are saying something critical of
Donald Trump. Is he going to sue us for 5 billion, for 10 billion? Is
he going to drive us out of business? Maybe we should not run that
program. Maybe we should not do that investigative report.
Not just CBS. In recent times, he has sued ABC. He has sued Meta,
which owns Facebook and Instagram. He has sued the Des Moines Register.
What crime did a little newspaper in Iowa make? What was their crime?
They ran a poll which turned out, in retrospect, to be inaccurate.
So pollsters all over America, be careful. There was a poll coming
out just today--I saw it--that Trump's unfavorables are going up. Hey,
you may be sued. Pull that poll.
I mean, how absurd is that? And what kind of threat is it to freedom
of speech and expression in this country?
And when we talk about the Trump administration's movement toward
authoritarianism, we should take note of another remarkable and
troubling set of events that happened just this week, and my colleague
from Colorado spoke at length on that. We saw the President of the
United States openly aligning himself with the dictator of Russia--the
dictator of Russia--Vladimir Putin, to undermine the independence of
Ukraine and abandon our closest democratic allies in Europe.
Trump made it clear that he sees one of the world's most brutal
dictators as his pal and our longtime democratic allies as his enemies.
It appears that Mr. Trump wants a world that is safe for authoritarians
and oligarchs but dangerous and unstable for democracies.
And when we talk about authoritarianism, we have got to mention the
growing phenomenon in this country of the Big Lie. The Big Lie.
Say something that is blatantly untrue, repeat it over and over
again, and then blast that lie out on social media until people
actually believe it.
Let me mention one of the very big lies that Trump said recently
regarding the war in Ukraine earlier this week. The President said that
Ukraine started the war. Trump said that Ukraine started the war.
Really? That is, as I hope every Member of the Senate knows, an
absolute lie.
Russia invaded Ukraine twice; first, in 2014 and then again on
February 24, 2022. And on that date, February 24, 2022, Putin's tanks
and troops rolled into Ukraine. And on that day, Russian aircraft began
bombing targets all over Ukraine. Russia started the war. Period. End
of discussion. Trump is lying.
Since Putin's invasion, over 1 million people have been killed or
injured every single day. Russia continues to rain down hundreds of
missiles and drones on Ukrainian cities. Putin's forces have massacred
civilians and kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children, bringing them
back to Russian reeducation camps. These atrocities led the
International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Vladimir
Putin in 2023 as a war criminal.
Further, Trump called Ukrainian President Zelenskyy--not Putin, but
Zelenskyy--a dictator, and that obviously is not true either. Zelenskyy
won 75 percent of the vote in free elections, and in the midst of a
brutal war, Ukraine's Parliament continues to function and open and
unfettered political debate takes place.
Trump recently claimed that our European allies have done little to
support Ukraine in its fight against Putin's invasion. He said the
United States has contributed three times more than Europe. Well, that
is another lie. In fact, Europe has provided more aid to Ukraine than
the United States.
But it is not just that Trump is lying again. That is not new. It is
what this all reveals about where we want to take our country and where
we want the world to be moving--what direction.
Trump is cozying up to Vladimir Putin. So who is Putin, and what kind
of world does Putin want to build? Putin is a dictator who crushed
Russia's movement toward democracy after the end of the Cold War.
Russia now holds sham elections where Putin wins 90 percent of the
vote, and authorities there do not even try to hide their ballot
stuffing.
There is no freedom of speech or free media in Putin's Russia.
Protests are violently suppressed. Tens of thousands of people are
imprisoned for protesting Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Political dissidents are harassed or thrown into jail. The bravest
people like Alexei Navalny are killed outright. Hundreds of thousands
of Russians have fled Putin's Russia since his invasion of Ukraine.
That is the Russian leader that Donald Trump admires. But my
Republican colleagues know all of this. And what is particularly
disturbing to me--and I believe the American people--is my colleagues,
my Republican colleagues, understand and know that Trump is lying; they
know that Russia started the war, not Ukraine; they know that Putin is
a dictator, not Zelenskyy, but their silence has been overwhelming on
this issue.
I cannot tell you how many times I have sat here on the floor and I
have listened to my Republican colleagues come to the Senate to condemn
Vladimir Putin and his brutal invasion of Ukraine. Many of their
remarks were right on the money. They were perceptive, and they were
right.
And my simple question to my Republican colleagues right now is:
Where are you now? Last I heard, this is still a democracy. Last I
heard, we are still allowed to disagree with the President of the
United States, even if he is a member of your own party.
Last I heard, we are allowed to call out the President when he lies--
blatantly lies--even if he is a member of our own party. And what
really bothers me is I know that many of my Republican colleagues
understand all of this.
I just want to give you an example of what is going on right now. Let
me just quote a few of my Republican colleagues in statements they have
made since Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
These are Republican Members of the U.S. Senate, and I am not going
to mention names right now. I don't want to embarrass anyone, put
anybody on the spot. These are quotes.
One leading Republican said:

We must remember that the instigator of this war was
Russia. It was President Putin who launched an unprovoked
attack on Ukraine.

That Republican colleague was obviously right.
Another Republican said:

I think Vladimir Putin started the war. I also believe,
through bitter experience, that Vladimir Putin is a gangster.

That is a Republican colleague.
A third Republican colleague:

There is no equivalency between Vladimir Putin and
President Zelenskyy. President Putin is evil, and he has to
be stopped.

Fourth Republican--and this is just a few of the quotes. I could
probably come up with dozens of quotes. Fourth Republican said when the
war began:

Today's invasion of Ukraine by Russia is a premeditated and
flagrant act of war. Putin has violated the border of a
sovereign country.

That Senator later said:

Anyone who is surprised by Putin's deadly attack on a
sovereign nation has not been paying attention. These are the
actions of a madman.

Just recently that very same Senator said:

Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine. If we abandon
Ukraine and throw in the towel--as some would like us to do--
that is going to drastically change how people view the
United States, and how people rely on the United States, and
there will be major consequences.

A fifth Republican--fifth Republican colleague here in the Senate
called Putin a thug and compared him to Hitler. He said:

Vladimir Putin is not a legitimate leader. He is a war
criminal that needs to be dealt with.

That is what my Republican colleagues have said time and time again.

[[Page S1097]]

The question is, Now do you have the courage to continue telling the
truth when the President of the United States is lying?
This is an extraordinarily pivotal moment in American history, and
all of us must have the courage to stand up for truth, to stand up for
democracy, to oppose authoritarianism. This is the moment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

S. Con. Res. 7

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, families lose, billionaires win. That is
the proposition at the heart of the Republican budget resolution. Now,
this plan is going to be explored tonight through a series of
amendments.
As the American people watch how we vote on these amendments, it will
become clearer and clearer what it is all about; families lose,
billionaires win.
We will see tonight that Democrats vote against irreparable increases
to the deficit, and Republicans vote to explode the deficit.
We will see tonight, Democrats vote against tax giveaways to the
billionaires, and Republicans vote for tax giveaways to the
billionaires.
We will see tonight, Democrats vote again and again to protect
programs that support families while Republicans vote time and time
again to slash those programs, those programs that families depend on
to be on their feet and to thrive, to move into the middle class, to
move beyond the middle class, to know with confidence that their
children will have a strong foundation for growing up.
That is what we will see tonight; families lose, and billionaires
win. Democrats will fight this terrible vision for America in every
single way we can.
Now, our Republican colleagues earlier on the floor said: Oh, no, no.
This bill is nothing except a little bit about border security and
national security.
If that were true, then why isn't this a conversation in the spending
committee, the Appropriations Committee? If that were true, why did our
Republican colleagues repeatedly block bipartisan border and Defense
bills?
Last year, the Appropriations Committee passed a strong bipartisan
defense bill. Let's pass it. Last year, the Senate negotiated a
bipartisan border deal, and Donald Trump, the candidate, killed it
saying he wanted to exploit the issue of immigration on the campaign
trail. Well, the campaign is over. There is a path now for that same
bipartisan bill on the border.
All of this makes it absolutely clear that this bill is not about
border and defense. This bill is all about this; families losing,
billionaires winning.
This bill has a budget table that relays that they are going to slash
$1 trillion in programs for families in just the last 6 months of this
fiscal year--between now and September 30--and to do so, to fund more
tax giveaways to megamillionaires and billionaires, cut the programs
for families to fund tax cuts for billionaires. That is what this is
about.
We saw that also last Wednesday in the Budget Committee. Democrats
offered amendment after amendment to protect the programs, and what did
we see to protect against the rising cost of groceries? Democrats voted
for that protection; Republicans rejected it.
Make sure that we don't lose the tax credits that enable the middle
class to buy health insurance on the exchange? Democrats defended those
credits; Republicans voted against it.
Attack Medicaid, healthcare for the poor? Democrats voted to protect
Medicaid, and Republicans voted against it.
Lower the price of prescription drugs so we don't pay more than
people in other countries? Democrats voted for that protection;
Republicans rejected it.
And on and on. Renting or buying a home, controlling the costs?
Democrats voted to defend and lower housing costs; Republicans rejected
it.
Making college more expensive? Democrats said: No way. We voted
against that. Republicans rejected it so they could raise costs of
college loans and childcare.
That is what this bill is about; families lose, and billionaires win.
Republicans rejected every single amendment to help families stand on
their feet and thrive, and families are going to pay a much higher
price. In fact, this budget resolution opens the door to higher prices
on groceries. That is Trumpflation. Trumpflation has arrived. This
budget opens the door to making healthcare more expensive, both for
low-income families and for middle-class families.
Trumpflation, this budget opens the door to making college more
expensive. I was the first in my family to go to college. It was a
really big deal that we found a way to be able to afford to go.
My family helped out, and I worked my way all through college. Making
it more expensive, that is wrong. Trumpflation has arrived in the form
of making college more expensive--all of this strategy to increase the
costs for Americans.
Boy, I am not getting any calls to my office. Are you getting any
calls to your office, colleagues? Saying we want to raise the cost for
Americans? Didn't I hear Trump on the campaign trail saying he was all
about lowering costs?
But tonight, this bill is about Trumpflation increasing the cost of
goods to ordinary Americans. Yes, it is about decreasing the cost to
billionaires through massive tax cuts. This bill is all about helping
the billionaire team.
But those thousands of phone calls I have gotten--some days I have
had over 2,000 phone calls--not one--not one single one said: We want
Trumpflation. Not one single one said: We want tax cuts for
billionaires. Not one single call at 2,000 a day said: We want you to
cut the programs that enable families to be on their feet in healthcare
and housing and education and childcare.
Candidate Trump is a different person from President Trump. Candidate
Trump said: I am running to fight for families. But now who is he
fighting for? He is fighting for the megamillionaires and the
billionaires. This is a great betrayal.
And this connection exists between cutting the programs for families
and funding tax giveaways to those megamillionaires and billionaires,
and we have seen this movie before. We saw it in the 2017 strategy
during the last Trump administration. They did a tax bill and almost
all the money went to the wealthiest Americans.
So this isn't some, like, fiction about President Trump. This is a
clear replay of the Republican plan. They did it before, and they are
doing it again.
Now, you probably heard the expression during your life: Fool me
once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Well, America, you are
getting fooled a second time. This is the great betrayal. Let's not let
that happen.
We will fight it here, but it is going to take American citizens
rising up to their feet, getting off of the couch, joining
organizations, making their voice heard. That is what is going to make
the difference in the course of what happens here in Congress. It is
the voice of the people on the streets, as well as the battle we lead
inside this Chamber, that is going to save us from Trumpflation, that
is going to save us from the plan that attacks families and feathers
the nests of billionaires.
This connection between cutting programs for families and increasing
tax giveaways for billionaires, it is actually in the Republican bill
on the House side. They made it explicit.
This House language says for every additional dollar they cut from
the safety net, they can give away an additional dollar to billionaires
in tax cuts.
It is in the Republican bill in the House just down the hall. That is
a pretty remarkable and bold thing to lay out for all of America to
read. There is an additional factor here in the Republican plan, and
that is to run the Nation deeper into debt.
We have seen this play again before. Each of these bars represents an
administration. The first President Bush administration, the Clinton
administration, George W. Bush, his 8 years, Obama's 8 years, Trump's 4
years, Biden's 4 years, and what you see is the difference between the
deficit their first year in office and their last year in office.
So what happened over the course of H.W. Bush's 4 years is the
deficit went up. What you see in Clinton's 8 years is the annual
deficit went down. His last deficit was not even a deficit, it was a
surplus.
George W. Bush came along and said: Let's run that deficit right back
up,

[[Page S1098]]

and he did it, 8 years; a lot more deficit in his eighth year than his
first year. Obama came along and set fiscal discipline. Let's lower
that deficit, and he lowered it year after year from his first year to
his eighth year.
And then we come to the first Trump administration, and he just blew
the top off it all. Talk about the biggest contributor, the biggest
deficits, the biggest contributors to national debt, it is the first
Trump administration. And along comes the Biden administration and
says: We have got to lower those deficits; and in his 4 years, his
fourth deficit was much lower than his first.
Now we are seeing Trump II, and this budget plan tonight, that is
this bar. This is going back up. Maybe not as large to be planned as
Trump I in terms of that, but absolutely going in the wrong direction.
So it is a mystery. My Republican colleagues, they campaign as
fiscally conservative. They say they are going to lower the deficit,
and every single time they fool us. They come in here, they cut the
taxes for the richest Americans, revenues proceed to fail to
compensate, and they run up the deficit.
And now they are going to do it again if we let this budget
resolution pass. So let's not let it pass. Let's oppose it.
Republican colleagues, come and join us in fiscal responsibility and
take this budget resolution that is laying out a vision of more and
more deficits and more and more debt and put it in the woodchipper.
We have been hearing a lot about the woodchipper. Take this plan that
cuts programs for families and put it in the woodchipper. Take this
plan that gives tax giveaways to the richest Americans--the
megamillionaires and the billionaires--and put it in the woodchipper
because it is wrong for America to attack the programs for families in
order to fund tax giveaways to billionaires.
President Trump has said he wants a ``big, beautiful''--beautiful--
``bill.'' But you know what? There is nothing beautiful about the bill
that is on the floor tonight. There is nothing beautiful about
destroying the programs families depend on. There is nothing beautiful
about using those cuts to fund tax cuts for billionaires. There is
nothing beautiful about running up the deficits and debt Republican-
style that they do every single time.
What we have right now is not government by and for the people. What
we have right now is by and for the billionaires. President Trump made
that very clear at his inaugural address. Who do we have standing right
behind him? Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire of Facebook; at this end,
the scowl on his face, Elon Musk, CEO of so many companies, including
Tesla. Who do we have? Jeff Bezos of Amazon, one of the richest men in
the world along with Elon Musk. And we have Sundar Pichai, the CEO of
Alphabet, the mother company of Google. By and for billionaires, that
is what that is all about.
So Democrats will not rest tonight until we vote on each of our
amendments to protect working families. We will not rest tonight till
we vote on each of our amendments to stop the tax giveaways to
billionaires. And tonight, Democrats will be fighting by ourselves,
inviting our Republican colleagues to join us.
But we will not be fighting for ourselves alone; we are fighting for
the American family. This Republican budget, it is the great betrayal;
and we, the Democrats, will fight to stop it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, in a few moments, Senators will
begin voting on amendments to the Republican plan that cuts taxes for
the ultrarich. Everything--everything that Donald Trump and the
Republicans have done over the last month--all the chaos, all the
lawlessness that we have seen--serves one crooked goal. Donald Trump,
Elon Musk, and Republicans are trying to give their billionaire buddies
a tax break and have you--the American people--pay the cost.
It can be summed up very simply in this wonderful chart that my
friend from Oregon has put together. What the chart says, under the
Republican plan: ``Families lose, billionaires win.''
What could be further from what Americans want? What could be
further? Tonight, Democrats are going to force Republicans to defend
their tax cuts for billionaires like Elon Musk.
We are going to be here all night. We are going to put forward
amendments forcing Republicans to defend their unpopular agenda,
exposing the Republican plan for what it is: a massive, massive
billionaire giveaway, paid for on the backs of working-class and
middle-class Americans.
The Republicans know they want to hide this. They know it is not
popular. They know 80 percent of the American people dislike this plan.
So Donald Trump and others obfuscate. They want us to pay attention to
Gulf of America, building hotels in Gaza, annexing Canada. Why?
Why are they doing these bits of foolishness? They don't want the
American people to see that the Republican plan has families lose and
billionaires win.
Our amendments will come in three categories: One focused on tax cuts
for the billionaires, trying to undo those; one focused on the damage
Republicans will inflict on American families in order to pay for their
tax cuts; and one bucket--the final bucket--focused on lawlessness and
corruption done in service to create chaos so they can cut taxes for
billionaires.
Those are the categories: one focused on tax cuts for billionaires,
one focused on damage Republicans inflict on American families to pay
for those tax cuts, and one on Trump's lawlessness and corruption done
in service to create chaos, so they can cut taxes for billionaires.
Let me repeat: Tonight, Democrats will force Republicans to defend
their cuts for billionaires, and tonight will just be the first time.
We will be doing this over and over again.
Because we know that they don't want the American people to know that
that is their North Star. Almost everything they do is aimed at getting
those tax breaks for the billionaires. We are also going to force
Republicans to defend their cuts on American families, cutting
healthcare and Medicaid and education and housing and more. All to pay
for the tax cuts of their billionaire buddies.
Finally, Democrats will force the Republicans to defend Donald
Trump's scorched earth assault on the rule of law, an assault he is
waging in order to put more money in the pockets of billionaires.
That is what tonight is all about, how Republicans want to help
billionaires win, American families lose, and the rule of law burned to
the ground.
I thank my colleagues for bringing the amendments to the floor. We
are going to be here all night. We have lots of amendments that are in
these three categories. It will be a long night, but it is a debate the
American people need to see, deserve to see. And that is why we are
here.
We Democrats are glad to have this debate. Let's have it two, three
more times, when they come up with this new reconciliation and that,
when the House and Senate Republicans finally get their act together.
Bring it on.
I am proud to offer tonight's very first amendment, one that makes a
simple proposal: Nobody, nobody, nobody making more than a billion
dollars should get yet another tax break. That is it. That is the
amendment. If you make a billion dollars, God bless you, you are doing
fine, but you don't deserve a tax break.
I would love to hear the Republicans argue why of all people who need
a tax break right now, it is the billionaire class.
In this era of high inflation and growing inequality, billionaires
aren't the ones who should be getting the massive tax giveaway. They
are doing just fine. Instead, we should be helping working- and middle-
class Americans get better jobs, earn higher paychecks, and pay lower
costs.

So, tonight, the very first question Republicans must answer is this:
Do you agree--Mr./Mrs. Republican Senator, Ms. Republican Senator, all
the Republican Senators--do all the Republican Senators agree that
billionaires should not be getting another tax break? Yes or no? And if
you don't think they should get a tax break--that billionaires should
get a tax break--just vote with us in supporting this amendment.
We are going to get our answer very, very soon, and that answer, the
American people are going to see over and

[[Page S1099]]

over and over again, over the next hours, the next days, the next
weeks, the next months.
The second amendment will be offered by Senator Klobuchar to prevent
Republicans from lowering taxes for billionaires if the price of food
keeps going up.
Donald Trump said, when he was campaigning, he was going to bring
inflation down on day one, but inflation is going up.
Donald Trump--Mr. President Trump--it is going up. What about your
promise--it is going to go down on day one?
Grocery prices are up: chicken, pork, steak--more expensive--eggs, up
15 percent from last month.
While Americans continue to struggle paying for groceries, feeding
their kids, the last thing we should be doing is cutting taxes for the
richest of the rich in this country.
And I will offer the third amendment of the evening, one that stops
Republicans from kicking people off Medicaid to pay for their
billionaire tax breaks.
Eighty million Americans, a little less than a quarter of all
Americans--80 million--get health insurance through Medicaid, from
newborn kids to working moms, to seniors in nursing homes and assisted
living homes. Republicans have made it crystal clear that gutting
Medicaid is one of their main strategies for paying for their massive
tax cuts. Look no further than the House Republican proposal: a huge
amount of the cuts to Medicaid.
What do you tell people who need healthcare who are working people
who use Medicaid? What do you tell people who use community health
centers, which give efficient healthcare, Mr. Musk--efficient
healthcare? What do you tell a family who has a mom in a nursing home
and that nursing home will get cut so mom has to come home and live
with that family? Build a new room in the house? But wood prices are
going up if Trump puts in his tariffs. What do you tell them?
And remember, I would remind my Republican colleagues, when you tried
this in 2017--tax cuts for the rich, cutting healthcare, in that case
the ACA--America didn't like it. They are not going to like it again.
My amendment will ask Republicans: Do they really want to cut taxes
for billionaires so badly that they are willing to take healthcare away
from kids, that they are willing to kick grandparents out of nursing
homes and abandon Americans with disability and take away healthcare
from rural America? We will see what they do.
Now, Republicans can spin their agenda however they want. They
certainly will try to change the subject. They won't admit that their
tax breaks are aimed at the wealthiest.
They can try to pass one bill. They can try to pass two bills. They
can try to pass 50 bills. It doesn't matter. They can slice and dice
their policies in whatever order they wish. It doesn't matter in the
end. Republican's North Star is singular, unchanging. They are trying
to give their billionaire buddies a tax break and have you--the
American people, American families--pay the cost.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. And I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments
be the first amendments in order; that the amendments be reported by
number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendments: Schumer No. 454, Klobuchar No. 494, Merkley No. 473.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

Amendment No. 454

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 454 and ask
that it be reported my number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 454.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prevent unwarranted tax cuts for the ultra-rich)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am proud to offer tonight's very first
amendment. It makes a simple proposal: No billionaire should get
another tax break. I ask my Republican colleagues, yes or no, do you
believe billionaires should get another tax break or not? Vote yes on
this amendment if you think billionaires should not get another tax
break.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the targeted budget blueprint before us
today would secure the border, strengthen the military, and facilitate
energy independence, and take initial steps to get our fiscal house in
order.
While the Finance Committee does have a $1 billion deficit decreasing
instruction, this is not a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill. The
instruction makes that clear.
To meet this instruction, the Finance Committee will reverse a Biden
administration nursing home rule that would increase taxpayer costs by
billions and jeopardize patient access to the long term, especially in
our already underserved rural communities.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I have been advised that this amendment would be
corrosive to the privilege of the budget resolution if adopted. Because
the amendment contains matters that are inappropriate for a budget
resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's privilege.
Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act
because it is not germane to the budget resolution.
Since the amendment does not meet a standard required by law, I raise
a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and
nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd

[[Page S1100]]

Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Warner

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Moody). On this vote, the yeas are 47,
the nays are 52.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 494

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 494, and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Ms. Klobuchar] proposes an
amendment numbered 494.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To stop tax cuts for the ultra-rich while families struggle
to put food on the table)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY IN
LIEU OF REDUCING FOOD COSTS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that cuts
taxes for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income greater
than $1,000,000,000 if the most recent change in the Consumer
Price Index shows an increase in food prices.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today with a commonsense
amendment, and that is that no one should be cutting taxes for
billionaires while food prices are rising.
Democrats and Republicans alike can agree that food prices are just
too high. The price of eggs recently hit a record high of $4.95. That
is 53 percent higher than a year ago. And wholesale egg prices have
increased 30 percent since the President took office to more than $8.
That means egg prices will continue to skyrocket.
And as an aside, accidentally firing frontline avian flu workers
isn't going to change any of that.
Prices of other groceries like beef, fish, and fresh fruit have also
increased, with the most recent consumer price index showing overall
food prices rising.
Instead of focusing on $2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans, we should work together to lower food prices for Americans
across the country. That is why I call on my colleagues to support my
amendment, which will ensure that there are no tax cuts for
billionaires unless food prices are lowered for regular Americans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Point of Order

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, the targeted budget blueprint before us
today would secure the border, strengthen the military, facilitate
energy independence, and take initial steps to get our fiscal house in
order.
While the Finance Committee does have a $1 billion deficit-decreasing
instruction, this is not a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill. The
instruction makes that very clear. To meet this instruction, the
Finance Committee will reverse a Biden administration nursing home rule
that would increase taxpayer costs by billions and jeopardize patient
access.
Madam President, I have been advised that this amendment would be
corrosive to the privilege of this budget resolution if adopted.
Because the amendment contains matter that is inappropriate for a
budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's
privilege.
Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act
because it is not germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment
does not meet that standard required by law, I raise a point of order
against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Motion to Waive

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--52

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, and the nays
are 52.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 473

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 473 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment
numbered 473.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
impacts of hedge fund ownership of single-family homes and rent prices)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REDUCING
THE IMPACTS OF HEDGE FUND OWNERSHIP OF SINGLE-
FAMILY HOMES AND RENT PRICES.

[[Page S1101]]

In fact, ordinary families can't compete with their all-cash, no
inspection offers. They are driving up the prices to buy homes. They
are driving up the rent. So today, let's take a step toward restoring
the dream of homeownership. This is a deficit-neutral reserve fund that
creates incentives for private-equity hedge funds to ease their way out
of this market so that families can continue to be homeowners in
America, their children can continue to be homeowners.
Let's not let this dream die on our watch. I encourage you to vote
for this because houses should be homes for families, not a profit
center for Wall Street.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment. Here is why: They are putting the blame in the
wrong place.
We all agree the housing prices have skyrocketed over the last 4
years. Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle aren't interested
in new solutions. They are willing to place the blame anywhere except
where it belongs.
The real culprit in the failed housing policies is the Biden
administration. Under the previous administration, rental costs rose 20
percent. We should be discussing how to make housing more affordable
for more Americans. I plan to do just that at the Banking Housing and
Urban Development Committee.
I urge my colleagues to work with me. Working with President Trump
and Secretary Turner, we can achieve a housing comeback for the blue-
collar workers. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 473

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be the first amendments in order; that the
amendments be reported by number, with no amendments prior to a vote in
relation to the amendments: Warner No. 130, Murray No. 878,
Hickenlooper No. 925.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 130

Mr. WARNER. I thank the majority leader for having my amendment.
I would like to call up my amendment No. 130 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes amendment
numbered 130.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against any reconciliation bill
that would not decrease the cost of housing for American families)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY RECONCILIATION BILL
THAT WOULD NOT DECREASE THE COST OF HOUSING FOR
AMERICAN FAMILIES.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the
Senate to consider a reconciliation bill or a reconciliation
resolution pursuant to section 310 of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 644), or
an amendment to, conference report on, or amendment between
the Houses in relation to such a bill or resolution, that
would not decrease the cost of housing for American families.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment,
which would prohibit any reconciliation bill that does not decrease the
cost of housing for American families. I don't think there is any of us
in this body that doesn't hear about the enormous rising cost of
housing.
Throughout the years, both under Biden and Trump, we kept saying: We
are getting to housing next; we are getting to housing next. President
Trump said, on day one, that he would come in and lower the cost of
housing. He has done nothing of the kind. Instead, we have 3.7 million
Americans who have a shortage of housing units, and 30 percent of all
renters pay more than half of their income in rental cost.
We have got to make sure we send a message to the American people
that we are going to take on the rising cost of housing. One way we can
do that is supporting my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. Democrats are the ones who caused the record-high inflation
and soaring consumer prices with their reckless partisan spending. The
cost of everything is up 20 percent, and the cost of housing went up 40
percent during Joe Biden's Presidency.
Reducing illegal immigration and cutting energy costs through
reconciliation are critical components of reducing costs at the
checkout aisle.

Point of Order

Mr. President, this amendment, however, is not in order. If adopted
it would jeopardize the privileged status of the budget resolution and
could derail our efforts to use reconciliation.
Since the amendment does not meet the standard required by law, I
raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
I urge--I urge--my colleagues to just vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Motion To Waive

Mr. WARNER. While I have great respect for my friend from South
Carolina, and I do hope we can find some common ground on housing,
pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to
waive and ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

YEAS--47

[[Page S1102]]

Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--53

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
53.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment falls.
The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 878

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 878 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 878.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the reconciliation instructions and create a
reserve fund to implement a bipartisan, multi-year agreement to provide
up to $171,000,000,000 in discretionary funding for defense and up to
$171,000,000,000 in discretionary funding for other programs, accounts,
and activities to address border, veterans, farmers, food and
nutrition, disaster relief, and other needs)

On page 45, strike line 10 and all that follows through
page 52, line 19, and insert the following:

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 3001. RESERVE FUND FOR BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.

(a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution, make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,
and, consistent with section 4004, make adjustments to
address revisions to the statutory caps on discretionary
spending for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or
conference reports that provide up to an additional
$171,000,000,000 in discretionary budget authority for
defense over the period of fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year
2028 and up to an additional $171,000,000,000 in budget
authority for other discretionary spending over the period of
fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2028.
(b) House of Representatives.--The Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, and make
adjustments to address revisions to the statutory caps on
discretionary spending for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses,
motions, or conference reports that provide up to an
additional $171,000,000,000 in discretionary budget authority
for defense over the period of fiscal year 2025 to fiscal
year 2028 and up to an additional $171,000,000,000 in budget
authority for other discretionary spending over the period of
fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2028.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, my amendment does two things.
First of all, it strikes the reconciliation instructions. Secondly,
it creates a reserve fund to implement a bipartisan, multiyear
agreement to provide $171 billion in discretionary funding for both
defense and nondefense.
Democrats do agree we need more resources to invest in our national
security and address the challenges at the border and counter China,
but we cannot leave the rest of the budget in the dust while we do
that. So let's deliver investments to do both and make sure we also
support our veterans, agriculture, disaster response, biomedical
research, FAA, childcare, and more.
These are all big challenges. Democrats stand ready to work with our
colleagues, as we have in the past, including through our bipartisan
efforts on the Appropriations Committee. But that can only happen if
the Republicans are willing to work with us, and working with us means
actually working with us, not telling us to accept Elon Musk's cutting
$1 trillion in fiscal year 2025 to our priorities, which is assumed in
this Republican plan, and, at the same time, spending $342 billion on
their own priorities. It also means not sitting on your hands--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. --while Elon and Trump rip up our bipartisan laws. I
urge my colleagues--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, yeah, this is a big-time no. They are
rewriting the budget resolution. They want to take half of the $342
billion and spend it on things not related to what we want to do.
We want to secure the border. We want to give President Trump $175
billion to secure the border through Homeland Security and Judiciary,
and we will figure out how to spend it. We want to do $150 billion for
defense because the world is on fire. We want to do $20 billion for the
Coast Guard to help us become safer.
They are rewriting the resolution. They are taking half the money we
have dedicated for border security and defense and spending it on more
nondefense stuff. We are tired of that. We are not going to do that
anymore. We are going to defend America in this resolution. We are not
going to take half the money and spend it on more social spending. We
are going to defend our border. We are going to make the military more
lethal, and we are going to help the Coast Guard, and we are going to
pay for it--something you would never do. So vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 878

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--53

Order of Business

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be the next amendments in order; that the
amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to
a vote in relation to the amendments. The first is Bennet No. 540,
followed by Schiff No. 316, then Sullivan No. 1029, Schumer No. 776,
Ossoff No. 407, Wyden No. 308, Baldwin No. 276, and Reed No. 172.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority whip.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask to amend the request that it be
the Wyden No. 1156.

[[Page S1103]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Amendment No. 925

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 925 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Hickenlooper] proposes an
amendment numbered 925.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
raise energy costs for Americans, including higher monthly electricity
bills, building material expenses, and transportation costs)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST RAISING ENERGY COSTS FOR
AMERICANS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would
raise energy costs for Americans.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, the United States is producing more
energy right now than any country in the history of the world. We are
in the middle of an energy revolution. We got here by embracing an
``all of the above'' approach to energy, including solar, wind, and
geothermal, to keep prices as low as possible for working people.
Most of the energy that is ready to go today is clean and affordable.
Any action that blocks the rollout of that will raise prices for
working Americans. It is going to kill jobs and seek complete control
of emerging industries in China.
In fact, in the last few years, we have passed bills that make
historic investments in American-made energy. These bills create more
than 400,000 good-paying jobs, and yet there is an effort by this
administration to trash the progress we have made.
These actions will balloon energy bills for families--at least 240
bucks a year for working families everywhere--at a time when they are
struggling to afford eggs at the grocery just as inflation begins to
rise again.
Rather than limiting energy or firing critical government employees,
let's welcome our new energy future, a future marked by resilient
energy, rebuilt by American innovation for cheaper, more reliable
energy for every Coloradan in America. A simple yes-or-no point of
order will ensure nothing in the budget will increase energy costs for
working families. How could you vote against that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Point of Order

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reducing energy costs for all Americans
starts with reducing rent pay to develop our energy resources. If we
built more gas pipelines, if we built more powerplants, more
transmission lines, it will lower costs for consumers across the
country.
Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, spent
decades attempting to force unreliable, expensive nonbaseload sources
of power--things like solar, wind, and battery storage--not using the
free market, using mandates and subsidies. That is not how we do
things. It doesn't actually reduce costs.
This just forces American taxpayers to subsidize those industries. If
we end the clean energy mandates and cut through the redtape that is
stifling the energy development, we can make energy affordable and
reliable for all Americans.
But, look, since the amendment does not meet the standard required by
law, I raise a point of order against the amendment under section
305(b)(2)of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, and the nays
are 53.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Colorado.

Amendment No. 540

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 540 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet] proposes an
amendment numbered 540.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
reinstating the fired Federal employees at the Forest Service, National
Park Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of
Land Management)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO FEDERAL
LAND MANAGEMENT.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, this amendment reinstates the thousands of
fired National Park Service, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and Bureau of Land Management employees.
Our public lands are the crown jewel of America. With drought,
wildfire, and record visitation, our public lands are facing more
pressures than ever before. Now is not the time to fire dedicated
public servants who perform wildfire mitigation, manage visitors, clear
trails, permit grazing and mining and oil and gas operations.
Fewer boots on the ground means more wildfire risk and less access to
our public lands and puts enormous burden on communities across the
country, from Alaska to North Carolina, to Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, article II of the U.S. Constitution declares
the

[[Page S1104]]

President of the United States to be the person who holds the executive
power. He has the discretion to hire and fire those who work in
executive branch Agencies.
Now, for decades, staffing for the Federal land and wildlife
management and outdoor recreation Agencies has been a bipartisan issue.
This amendment does not do that. Instead, it attempts to turn Federal
land management Agency employment into a political football.
As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I
look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to address issues affecting Federal land management and Federal land
management employees, including finding innovative solutions for their
housing, working to ensure the concessionaires have flexibility and are
not held up in endless paperwork, and giving land managers flexibility
to work with their counties and gateway communities to hire qualified
employees and work with gateway community businesses.
This is not that amendment. This goes the wrong way, and I oppose it.
Mr. BENNET. Do I have any time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six seconds remaining.
Mr. BENNET. I urge my opponents to vote for this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
I yield back my second.

Vote on Amendment No. 540

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

Amendment No. 316

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 316 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mr. Schiff] proposes an
amendment numbered 316.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting Federal wildland firefighters and associated personnel)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SUPPORTING FEDERAL WILDLAND FIREFIGHTERS AND
ASSOCIATED PERSONNEL.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
supporting Federal wildland firefighters or other Federal
personnel necessary for hazardous fuels management and
community wildfire resilience, which may include provisions
to recruit and retain such personnel, paying such personnel a
fair wage and providing industry-standard leave policies
following wildfire deployments, supporting the health and
wellbeing of such personnel, exempting such personnel from
hiring freezes, or reinstating the employment of such
personnel the positions of whom were terminated during
calendar year 2025, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of
the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I stand here on behalf of Western States
colleagues--Senators Padilla, Heinrich, Lujan, Bennet, and
Hickenlooper--to ask this Chamber to take a clear stand on behalf of
the firefighters who help fight and prevent wildfires.
Wildfires don't discriminate. They hit red States and blue States.
Even as deadly devastating wildfires were burning in L.A. County,
President Trump adopted a freeze on hiring so widespread that it is
blocking the Forest Service from onboarding the seasonal firefighters
we require to prevent future fires.
Not only that, President Trump has also empowered an unelected
billionaire to run rampant through the ranks of our public servants,
not with a scalpel but with a hatchet. As a result, firefighters who
had just finished weekends of around-the-clock shifts fighting these
dangerous fires were given a thank-you note from their Commander in
Chief that said: Please quit.
Please quit--this was the reward our firefighters got.
Our amendment would make it very clear that we are committed to
reversing these cuts to the ranks of wildland firefighters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Reserve funds can accomplish nothing beyond political messaging, are
unnecessary, and, frankly, distract or delay the budgeting process.
This amendment would, in no way, impact the great firefighters who
fight our Nation's fires out West. These firefighters deserve
recognition. They deserve fair pay. In fact, we have the bill that does
that, the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act. It is
bipartisan. It permanently addresses securing increases in their wages.
If we want to support our wildland firefighters, let's pass this bill
and get it on President Trump's desk.
Republicans are committed to protecting our environment and our
public lands without suffocating the U.S. economy. I urge my colleagues
to do the same and oppose this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 316

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

[[Page S1105]]

Amendment No. 1029

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1029 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an
amendment numbered 1029.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting Medicare and Medicaid)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROTECTING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is going to be a late night with a
lot of votes. I want to take this opportunity to demonstrate our strong
Republican support for Medicaid and Medicare right now.
My amendment is very simple. It says we are going to strengthen and
improve Medicaid for the most vulnerable populations and strengthen
Medicare so that it is available for years to come.
Now, I know my Democratic colleagues are going to try tonight to use
scare tactics to message that Republicans don't support these vital
programs, but we do. These are critical programs that Republicans
support. Heck, President Trump has repeatedly said that these programs
are not going to be touched. People rely on Medicare and Medicaid.
Alaskans rely on Medicare and Medicaid, and we are here to strongly
support them. We should all agree that we want to weed out waste,
fraud, and abuse in our healthcare system, including in Medicare and
Medicaid, and we must maintain our safety net programs. We can do both
and make them stronger.
So I hope every single Member of the Senate tonight votes to support
my simple amendment, which would strengthen both Medicaid and Medicare
for the most vulnerable Americans. I ask for everybody's vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition. This amendment claims
to protect Medicare and Medicaid, but it does neither.
In particular, the Medicaid language seeks to talk about a group
called the most vulnerable. Obviously, we care about them, but the
language of the Sullivan amendment would leave millions behind, and we
don't want to go there. The language in this amendment is code for
kicking Americans with Medicaid coverage off their health insurance if
they are not sick enough, not poor enough, or not disabled enough. This
amendment does nothing to stop Republicans from cutting these essential
healthcare programs, kicking millions of Americans off their coverage,
all to pay for the tax cuts of billionaires.
I urge opposition.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, read the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SULLIVAN. We support Medicare and Medicaid. It is that simple.

Vote on Amendment No. 1029

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--49

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Curtis
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lee
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 1029) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 776

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 776 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 776.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prevent tax cuts for the wealthy if a single dollar of
Medicaid funding is cut)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST MEDICAID CUTS TO FUND TAX
BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that--
(1) cuts taxes for taxpayers with adjusted gross income
above $1,000,000,000; and
(2) reduces coverage for people in Medicaid, shifts
coverage or funding responsibility to states, or includes a
net reduction in Federal funding for Medicaid.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It allows
no billionaires to have any tax cuts if a single dollar of Medicaid
funding is cut. The American people need to know where Senate
Republicans stand on Medicaid.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump claimed he is opposed to Medicaid cuts.
Then, Wednesday, he supported it. And, today, he doubles down and even
opened the door to Medicare. He is flip-flopping left and right. So the
American people deserve to know: What about Senate Republicans? Where
do they stand?
Cutting Medicaid to pay for billionaire tax cuts would be a gut punch
to working people. Medicaid serves nearly 80 million people across the
country in States red and blue, from our sickest kids to our infirm in
nursing homes and vulnerable seniors.
These are the people we should focus on--kids, seniors, and rural
Americans--not billionaires. They are doing well enough already.
My amendment will ask Republicans: Do they really want to cut taxes
for billionaires so badly they are willing to take healthcare away from
kids and kick grandparents out of nursing homes? How are you going to
vote, colleagues?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Point of Order

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the Democrats know very well that this
targeted budget blueprint does not cut Medicaid or Medicare. The
blueprint before us focuses on securing the border, strengthening the
military, facilitating energy independence, and taking the initial
steps to get our fiscal house in order.
To meet this instruction, the Finance Committee will do one thing and
one thing only, and that is reverse a Biden administration nursing home
rule that would increase taxpayer costs

[[Page S1106]]

by billions and jeopardize patient access to long-term care, especially
in already underserved rural communities.
Mr. President, I have been advised that this amendment would be
corrosive to the privilege of this budget resolution if adopted.
Because the amendment contains matter that is inappropriate for the
budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's
privilege.
Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act
because it is not germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment
does not meet that standard required by law, I raised a point of order
against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--51

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Marshall). On this vote, the yeas are 49,
the nays are 51.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Georgia.

Amendment No. 407

Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, the momentum that is growing in Washington
to gut the Medicaid program is alarming my constituents in Georgia, and
I call up my amendment No. 407 and ask it to be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Ossoff] proposes an amendment
numbered 407.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting access to maternal and pediatric health care through
Medicaid)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROTECTING ACCESS TO MATERNAL AND PEDIATRIC
HEALTH CARE THROUGH MEDICAID.

Mr. OSSOFF. The sheer number of people affected: In Georgia 5 out of
7 seniors in nursing homes are covered by Medicaid; nearly 50 percent
of all births are covered by Medicaid; two out of five children in
Georgia are covered by Medicaid. I was disappointed to see just moments
ago the majority adopt an amendment to lay the foundation for deep cuts
to Medicaid.
I hope we can build bipartisan support for my amendment to ensure
that maternal and children's healthcare through Medicaid is protected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, once again the targeted budget blueprint
before us today is not about cutting Medicare or Medicaid. It doesn't
deal with Medicare or Medicaid. It deals with securing the border,
strengthening the military, facilitating the energy independence of our
country and taking the initial steps to put our fiscal house in order.
While the Finance Committee does have a $1 million deficit decreasing
instruction, this is not a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill, and
the claims that we have heard continuously tonight, to me, seem just to
be the politics of fear in the face of trying to deal with our Nation's
critical issues.
To meet this instruction, the Finance Committee will reverse a Biden
administration nursing home rule that would increase taxpayer cost by
billions, jeopardize patient access to long-term care, especially in
our already underserved rural communities.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment today, as it is
not relevant to the Finance Committee's instruction.

Vote on Amendment No. 407

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, the vote is whether to protect maternal
and pediatric healthcare through Medicaid.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--51

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 407) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Oregon.

Amendment No. 1156

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1156 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 1156.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1106, February 20, 2025, third column, the following
appears: Amendment No. 1156 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up
amendment No. 1156 and ask that it be reported by number. The
PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The senior assistant
legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Wyden] proposes an amendment numbered 1156.

The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 1156
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1156 and ask
that it be reported by number. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as
follows: The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes an amendment
numbered 1156. (The amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Text of Amendments.'')

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment is simple, it is direct,
and, I believe, the only legislation tonight that is comprehensive on
healthcare, that protects Medicaid and Medicare and the Affordable Care
Act. It does that by taking cuts to these vital programs off the table
in the Senate.
So what that means is, if you pass this amendment and the House sends
us a budget resolution with severe cuts to healthcare, the Senate will
have gone on record as being against the cuts.
Let's not jeopardize the health of millions of Americans. Support the
amendment.

[[Page S1107]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, once again, I think I have said this 10
times tonight. I will say it again. The budget blueprint we are working
on does not deal with Medicare and Medicaid. It is to secure the
border, strengthen the military, and facilitate our energy
independence.
The instruction given to the Finance Committee deals solely with
reversing a Biden administration nursing home rule that would increase
taxpayer costs by billions and jeopardize patient access to long-term
care, especially in our rural communities.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I have also been advised that this amendment, too,
would be corrosive to the privilege of the budget resolution if
adopted. Because the amendment contains matter that is inappropriate
for a budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's
privilege.
Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act
because it is not germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment
does not meet that standard required by law, I raise a point of order
against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1107, February 20, 2025, first column, the following
appears: Since the amendment does not meet that standard required
by law, I raise a point of order against the amendment under
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1973.

The online Record has been corrected to read: Since the
amendment does not meet that standard required by law, I raise a
point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. WYDEN. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 24 seconds remaining.
Mr. WYDEN. I will use my 24 seconds to say the reality is the House
is looking at a budget in the Energy and Commerce Committee with the
prospect of significant cuts in healthcare. That is why I want us to go
on record. If they send us something that cuts healthcare severely, we
will be on record as protecting healthcare.

Motion to Waive

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget
Act, I move to waive and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
53.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment falls.
The Senator from Wisconsin.

Amendment No. 276

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 276, to
protect seniors relying on Medicaid, and ask that it be reported by
number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Ms. Baldwin] proposes an
amendment numbered 276.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
take away health care from seniors, including those receiving care in
nursing homes, through cuts to the Medicaid program)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD TAKE
AWAY HEALTH CARE FROM SENIORS, INCLUDING THOSE
RECEIVING CARE IN NURSING HOMES, THROUGH CUTS
TO THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would
make changes to the Medicaid program under title XIX of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) unless the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office certifies that
such changes would not result in lower coverage rates,
reduced benefits, or decreased affordability for seniors,
including seniors who are residents of nursing facilities or
who receive services in their own homes.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, Medicaid is a lifeline for 8 million
seniors who rely on the program to access healthcare. Medicaid helps
almost two-thirds of all nursing home residents have a safe roof over
their heads.
Republicans would like us to believe that their proposed cuts are
tackling waste, fraud, and abuse. But make no mistake, stripping away
healthcare and nursing home funding for our parents and grandparents is
not reform nor is it eliminating waste. Rather, it is a deliberate
choice to give tax breaks for their billionaire friends instead of
ensuring that seniors across the country have access to the long-term
care and support they need. It is a deliberate choice to prioritize tax
cuts for billionaires over ensuring that nursing homes can keep their
doors open. It is a deliberate choice to take away healthcare from
millions of seniors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Point of Order

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I will just say what I said before: This
amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act because it is not
germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment does not meet
that standard, I raise a point of order against the amendment under
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Motion to Waive

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--52

[[Page S1108]]

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The majority leader.

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be the next amendments in order; that the amendments be
reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in
relation to the amendments: Reed-Shaheen No. 299, Paul No. 999, Slotkin
No. 664, Van Hollen No. 233, and Shaheen No. 436.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 172

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment
No. 172, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Lujan and
Alsobrooks, and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an
amendment numbered 172.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would
reduce Medicare and Medicaid benefits for Americans)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD
REDUCE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID BENEFITS FOR
AMERICANS.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment,
amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would
reduce Medicare or Medicaid benefits for working-class and
middle-income Americans.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the other day, President Donald Trump said:

Medicare, Medicaid--none of that stuff is going to be
touched.

If that statement had any truth behind it, then my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle should be voting for this amendment, which
calls for a point of order against any legislation that cuts Medicaid
or Medicare.
Medicare serves 67 million seniors and people with disabilities, and
nearly 80 million Americans rely on Medicaid. Failing to pass this
amendment will be a signal that these programs are on the chopping
block.
This vote will be a test for all of us, particularly my Republican
colleagues. Are we going to protect Medicare and Medicaid or are they,
my Republican colleagues, going to use this as a piggy bank for tax
cuts for the wealthy?
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Point of Order

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I repeat what I have said before. Because
this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act, it is not germane
to the budget resolution. Since the amendment does not meet that
standard required by law, I raise a point of order against the
amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Motion to Waive

Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--51

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
51.
Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen having not voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Rhode Island.

Additional Cosponsor

Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I call up my amendment, I ask that
Senator Coons be added as a cosponsor of the Reed-Shaheen amendment No.
299.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 299

Mr. REED. I call up my amendment No. 299 and ask that it be reported
by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. REED] proposes an
amendment numbered 299.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure continued United States support for the Government
of Ukraine to stand firm against aggression by the Government of Russia
in Europe)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SUPPORTING UKRAINE.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment ensures continuous support
for the government of Ukraine to stand firm against Russian aggression.
For 3 years, Ukraine has fought tooth and nail for its very survival.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. The Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. REED. Heroically withstanding barbaric attacks and unspeakable
violence by Russia.
The Ukrainians have achieved hard-won victories and have refused to
bend to Putin's demands, but they require continued U.S. support to
sustain their progress.
In those same 3 years, in this body, we have heard extensive
criticism of the Biden administration's Ukraine policy. They were not
going fast enough. They were not allowing Ukraine to be aggressive
enough. The strategy is not enabling Ukraine to win on the battlefield.
And yet, now, when the Trump administration is cutting deals with Putin
and walking away from Ukraine, we do not hear much at all--a deafening
silence. What has happened?
Well, regardless of what has happened, we cannot abandon Ukraine. We

[[Page S1109]]

cannot rush into a negotiation with a brutal dictator who we know will
not stop at Ukraine. He will next turn his sights on NATO allies--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. REED. We must support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment and
urge my colleagues to oppose it. There is no greater supporter of
Ukraine in this Senate than I am, but this is not the right vehicle.
This is a budget to add for national security investment, missile
defense, shipbuilding, munition, cybersecurity, taking care of our
troops, and protecting our borders.
There is a place to talk about Ukraine. It is not this budget. But
passage of this amendment, though Members might wish to, will make it
harder to pass this very valuable budget, and that is what this is
about. That is why even I, a huge supporter of what we are doing in
Ukraine, have to vote no on this, so we can pass a good budget.
I urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 299

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. REED. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Amendment No. 999

Mr. PAUL. I call up my amendment No. 999 and ask that it be reported
by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 999.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require an adequate amount of deficit reduction as part of
reconciliation)

On page 45, strike line 10 and all that follows through
page 49, line 23, and insert the following:

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 2001. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Committee on Agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture
of the House of Representatives shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less
than $230,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025
through 2034.
(b) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by
not more than $150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2025 through 2034.
(c) Committee on Education and Workforce.--The Committee on
Education and Workforce of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit by not less than $330,000,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(d) Committee on Energy and Commerce.--The Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit by not less than $880,000,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(e) Committee on Natural Resources.--The Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(f) Committee on Homeland Security.--The Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $175,000,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(g) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the
deficit by not more than $175,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(h) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.--The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less than
$10,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(i) Committee on Financial Services.--The Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(j) Submissions.--In the House of Representatives, not
later than March 7, 2025, the committees named in the
subsections of this section shall submit their
recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the House
of Representatives to carry out this section.

SEC. 2002. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.--The
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that reduce the deficit by not less than $230,000,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(b) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(c) Committee on Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.--The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less than
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(d) Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.--
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that reduce the deficit by not less than $120,000,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(e) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.--The
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(f) Committee on Environment and Public Works.--The
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(g) Committee on Finance.--The Committee on Finance of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that reduce the deficit by not less than $760,000,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(h) Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.--
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less than
$330,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(i) Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.--The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$175,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(j) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$175,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(k) Submissions.--In the Senate, not later than March 7,
2025, the committees named in the subsections of this section
shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate. Upon receiving all such
recommendations, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out
all such recommendations without any substantive revision.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the budget bill before us instructs the
Senate to find $342 billion in new spending. The budget bill, as
written, is a spending bill. My amendment would add language to cut
spending. The cuts would

[[Page S1110]]

total $1.5 trillion. These cuts mirror the cuts from the House budget
resolution that has been passed.
This year, the deficit will exceed $2 trillion. It is a fiscal
imperative that Congress begin to cut spending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, all evening we have been pointing out
that, with this bill, families lose and billionaires win. That is
certainly put onto steroids with this amendment because this amendment
would add a quarter trillion dollars directed at the SNAP program. It
would add a third of a trillion dollars directed at reducing the
viability of student loans, and almost three-quarters of a trillion
dollars to devastate Medicaid--programs that families depend on to be
able to thrive, to live in the middle class, to pursue opportunity.
I encourage everyone, if you don't want to have a bill in which
families lose, vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 999

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 76, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

YEAS--24

Barrasso
Britt
Cassidy
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Hagerty
Husted
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lee
Lummis
McCormick
Moody
Moreno
Paul
Risch
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Sheehy
Tuberville
Young

NAYS--76

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Banks
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Boozman
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The amendment (No. 999) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Britt). The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 664

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam President, I am not enjoying my first vote-arama,
but I do call up my amendment No. 664 and ask that it be reported by
number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Slotkin] proposes an
amendment numbered 664.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
preventing reductions in funding and staffing necessary to respond to,
control, and prevent avian flu)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PREVENTING REDUCTIONS IN FUNDING AND STAFFING
NECESSARY TO RESPOND TO, CONTROL, AND PREVENT
THE HIGHLY PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam President, my amendment is simple. It prohibits
cuts to the funding and staffing necessary to respond to and control
avian flu. This should be an easy no-brainer. Avian flu is jumping
between species. We are culling thousands of birds, and egg prices are
the highest they have ever been in U.S. history.
I want to believe that this body should be able to agree that a
biohazard that impacts every single one of our States should be
something that we maintain funding for. It is our job to protect our
constituents. That is basic. Avian flu is a threat. You know it. I know
it. The world knows it.
I urge you to put partisanship aside. Vote for this very simple
amendment. Maintain funding and staffing on avian flu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to amendment No.
664.
Agriculture Secretary Rollins and the White House have made clear
that addressing avian flu is a top priority.
I share my colleague from Michigan's concerns about avian flu, but
this is not the appropriate venue for policy discussions on animal
disease. This budget resolution is focused on securing the border,
strengthening the military, and bolstering American energy
independence.
I look forward to working with the Senator from Michigan, a fellow
Member whom we are glad to have on the Agriculture Committee--a new
member--to address animal disease threats in the farm bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 664

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Amendment No. 233

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 233 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Van Hollen], for himself and
Ms. Hirono, proposes an amendment numbered 233.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would cut
funding from the school lunch or school breakfast programs)

At the appropriate place in title IV, add the following:

SEC. 4___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CUT
FUNDING FROM THE SCHOOL LUNCH OR SCHOOL
BREAKFAST PROGRAMS.

[[Page S1111]]

Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) or
the school breakfast program established under section 4 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773).
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of
the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under
subsection (a).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I offer this amendment with my
colleague Senator Hirono. It is very straightforward. It creates a
point of order against any legislation that would cut funding from the
National School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program.
I think our colleagues know that nearly 14 million American children
were hungry last year. One in five kids doesn't know where their next
meal will come from or what it will be. So let's ensure that those kids
get healthy meals and can focus on their education and their studies
instead of their stomachs.
Madam President, 91 percent of public schools participate in the USDA
meals programs. Over half of our kids are eligible for free and reduced
lunch programs. They provide breakfast programs for over 2 billion of
them a year.
So colleagues, let's not abandon those kids in order to provide tax
cuts for Elon Musk and very rich people. I urge the adoption of our
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Point of Order

Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to amendment No.
233.
I appreciate the concerns of my colleague from Maryland, and I share
support for the school meal programs. I am eager for the Agriculture
Committee to turn to child nutrition reauthorization this Congress.
However, this amendment threatens the privilege of the resolution.
Senators on the Ag Committee are openminded and welcoming of our
colleague's involvement in important child nutrition programs; however,
the budget process is not the proper venue to make policy changes to
our school meals programs. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to
vote no on this amendment.
Madam President, since the amendment does not meet the standard
required by law, I raise a point of order against the amendment under
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Motion to Waive

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive, and I ask for the yeas and
nays and urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--51

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
51.
Three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The majority leader.

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be the next amendments in order, that the
amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to
a vote in relation to the amendments: Lujan, No. 699, Duckworth-Booker
No. 971, Heinrich No. 101, and Blumenthal No. 659.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 436

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 436 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen], for herself
and Ms. Baldwin, proposes an amendment numbered 436.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
preserving and extending vital tax credits enacted under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, which make health care accessible
and affordable and that have led to the lowest uninsured rate in our
Nation's history)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PRESERVING HEALTH CARE ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY
FOR BENEFICIARIES OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, this amendment would extend vital
Affordable Care Act tax credits for millions of Americans. We all know
that healthcare is still too expensive. Unfortunately, this
reconciliation bill that we are ultimately going to vote on is going to
make that worse.
In New Hampshire, we hear every day about people rationing medicines,
skipping appointments, and delaying care all because of costs, but we
can act now to lower those costs. We can extend those premium tax
credits because if we don't act, they will skyrocket and 4 million
Americans will lose their health insurance.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment to reinforce our support for
working families and their access to healthcare.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, once again, this targeted budget
blueprint before us would focus on the border, the military, and our
energy independence. While the Finance Committee does have a $1 billion
instruction, this is neither a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill.
That instruction makes that clear.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment today as it is
not relevant to the Finance Committee instruction.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S1112]]

Vote on Amendment No. 436

[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

Amendment No. 699

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment No.
699 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Lujan] proposes an
amendment numbered 699.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting police, which may include initiatives that provide funding
directly to law enforcement agencies to hire or rehire additional
career law enforcement officers in an effort to increase their
community policing capacity and crime prevention efforts)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO RELATING
TO THE COPS HIRING PROGRAM.

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, we are experiencing a nationwide shortage
of police officers. Police departments are stretched thin, making our
communities less safe. In the worst cases, some small departments have
disbanded completely. Small towns need Federal dollars to bolster their
ranks.
The Musk-Trump freeze took funding away from our police departments
and law enforcement officials. The COPS hiring program is a lifeline to
many law enforcement agencies. COPS hiring grants provide funding
directly to law enforcement agencies to increase their community
policing capacity and crime prevention efforts.
On behalf of all Americans who care about public safety, I introduce
this amendment to provide increased resources for local law
enforcement.
This is a bipartisan issue. It should be easy. I hope my colleagues
just accept it, and we don't even have to have a vote on it. There is
no reason to oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. We should ensure that all law enforcement have the necessary
equipment, training, and resources to keep our communities safe and
thoroughly investigate crimes committed against all people. I have come
to the floor and have spoken on this many, many times in the 10 years
that I have been here.
Securing the border must remain the top priority in reducing crime,
and this amendment does not adequately support necessary safety
improvements. So I urge you to vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 699

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. LUJAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

Amendment No. 971

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I call up Duckworth-Booker amendment
No. 971 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Duckworth] proposes an
amendment numbered 971.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting access to fertility services, and eliminating barriers for
families in need of high-quality, affordable fertility services by
expanding nationwide coverage for in vitro fertilization)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO EXPANDING
COVERAGE FOR IN VITRO FERTILIZATION.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, this amendment would protect the right
to IVF and other fertility care, and it would require insurance to
cover IVF.

[[Page S1113]]

I know my Republican colleagues will claim President Trump has
already solved this problem, but don't be fooled. Donald Trump's recent
toothless, overly-vague Executive order does nothing to expand access
to IVF. It was just lipservice from a known liar. In fact, it is
because of President Trump and Senate Republicans that Roe v. Wade was
overturned, causing IVF to be at risk in the first place.
If President Trump is supposedly so committed to making government
more efficient, he could stop wasting time and resources on more
bureaucracy.
The solution to this is simple and all laid out in the Right to IVF
Act. If Senate Republicans want to put their votes where their mouths
are, they must vote for this amendment that would provide hope for
millions of Americans whose most desperate hope in the world is to have
a family of their own.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, IVF is legal and accessible in all 50
States. This amendment is nothing more than a Trojan horse. It is far
more expansive than they would want you to believe. It actually creates
a universal right to ``assisted reproductive technologies,'' allowing
future administrations to move this into human cloning and gene-edited
designer babies. It also contains no religious freedom protections.
Aside from being bad policy, let's take a step back and think about
what has occurred. Two days ago, President Trump took the most pro-IVF
Executive action ever towards increased treatment, access, and
affordability, while President Biden played politics with IVF, hoping
it would help that side of the aisle win on November 5. The American
people saw through that. All 49 Republicans here in this Chamber at
that time said we strongly support nationwide access to IVF.
We look forward over the next 90 days to working with President Trump
to make sure that we increase access and affordability of treatment.
Mr. President, for that reason--today we are here to talk about the
border, defense, and energy, and I urge my colleagues to vote this
Trojan horse down.

Vote on Amendment No. 971

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--51

Amendment No. 101

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 101 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Heinrich] proposes an
amendment numbered 101.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
funding for grants awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO FUNDING
FOR GRANTS AWARDED BY THE OFFICE ON VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment to
support grants for survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse.
Over the last several weeks, I have heard from thousands of New
Mexicans about how Donald Trump and Elon Musk have thrown their lives
and communities into chaos. That includes Alexandria Taylor and her New
Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs. She called me about
President Trump's blockade on Federal grants under the Violence Against
Women Act. These grants do two things: They support survivors of rape
and sexual assault, sexual abuse, and domestic violence; and they help
law enforcement hold predators and abusers accountable.
These are not woke ideas. These are American values. If you support
survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, if you support law
enforcement holding abusers and predators accountable, I hope you will
support this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 101

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question
occurs on the adoption of the amendment.
The amendment (No. 101) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Connecticut.

Amendment No. 659

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in order to protect our veterans, who
deserve full funding, I call up my amendment No. 659 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Blumenthal] proposes an
amendment numbered 659.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure full and uninterrupted funding for Department of
Veterans Affairs health care and benefits provided by the Sergeant
First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address
Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-168), also known as
the ``PACT Act'', preventing any cuts or delays)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
FULL AND UNINTERRUPTED FUNDING FOR DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE AND BENEFITS.

[[Page S1114]]

protect full funding for the PACT Act. All of us--or most of us--voted
for it. It was bipartisan. It was one of the most significant
expansions of healthcare and benefits for toxic-exposed veterans in the
VA's history.
Now it is threatened because the Trump administration is aggressively
attempting to decimate the VA workforce. It has imposed a freeze, and
it is cutting men and women employees who are integral to fulfilling
our promise under the PACT Act.
We should be proud of it. We should preserve it. And if President
Trump has no plans to erode the PACT Act, voting for this amendment
should be easy for my Republican colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this amendment is unnecessary. Full funding
to carry out the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson PACT Act is not in
jeopardy. The PACT Act received widespread bipartisan support,
bicameral commitment, because we care about toxic-exposed veterans and
their families, and this is not a partisan issue.
Republicans have always fought to fully fund the VA. When the VA
comes back to Congress asking for more money, like they did last
September, because of unexpected shortfalls, we said yes. The
administration and this Congress will continue to prioritize full and
uninterrupted funding of the VA, including funding necessary to fulfill
the laws, like the PACT Act, that Congress enacted.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 659

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question
now occurs on the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fetterman) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

NOT VOTING--1

Fetterman

The amendment (No. 659) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I think for the benefit of all Members, I
hope that very soon we will have a final agreement that will enable us
to wind this down with a finite number of votes. And when that happens,
I want to ask everybody to be in their seats so we can move fairly
quickly through those. And in the intervening time period, while they
are working that out, we have a couple more amendments.
I am going to ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be
the final amendments in order; that the amendments be reported by
number; that following disposition of the amendments, the Senate vote
on adoption of the concurrent resolution, as amended, with no
intervening action or debate; finally, if agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table: Markey 911;
Coons 1223.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 911

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 911 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] proposes an
amendment numbered 911.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
increasing funding for research on Alzheimer's disease and related
dementias)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
INCREASING FUNDING FOR RESEARCH ON ALZHEIMER'S
DISEASE AND RELATED DEMENTIAS.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, funding for Alzheimer's research at the
NIH is essential. Nearly 7 million Americans are living with
Alzheimer's right now, and if nothing changes, 15 million Americans--15
million baby boomers--will have Alzheimer's by 2050 with a cost of $1
trillion a year to our healthcare system.
We need to tackle this challenge head-on by increasing funding for
NIH research for Alzheimer's. Trump and DOGE have already cut and
slowed down NIH research, interfering with our ability to cure this
disease. This is a ``Make America Sick'' agenda. A ``no'' on this
amendment means taking away hope from millions of Americans with
Alzheimer's and their families. After the Bush billionaire tax cut in
2001, the NIH budget was cut in spending power by 20 percent over the
next 5 years.
We must guarantee that Alzheimer's research is protected. I urge an
aye vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. As we all know by now, the purpose of this budget resolution
is to unlock reconciliation so we can once again secure the border and
keep America safe.
I do look forward to working with the Senator from Massachusetts to
prevent and better treat Alzheimer's, but the reserve funds in this
instance are unnecessary and distract and delay the budgeting process.
We need targeted solutions, not broad funding that doesn't directly
address the immediate needs. I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 911

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 911) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Amendment No. 1223

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1223 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Coons] proposes an amendment
numbered 1223.

The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S1115]]

(Purpose: To protect Americans' privacy from unauthorized access by
DOGE)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROTECT
TAXPAYER PRIVACY

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate level in this resolution,
and make adjustments to the pay-as you-go ledger, for one or
more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between
the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
protecting taxpayer information, which may include ensuring
the protection of sensitive personal information of United
States citizens and prohibiting political appointees and
officials from the Department of Government Efficiency from
accessing such data, including Social Security numbers, bank
account information, tax returns, and addresses through
Internal Revenue Service systems by the amounts provided in
such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of
the total of fiscal year 2025 through 2034.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President and colleagues, unvetted and unaccountable
DOGE agents have seized control of government systems and databases
that contain vast troves of personally identifying, sensitive
information about nearly every American--financial data, health data,
Social Security numbers, home addresses. The risks to our privacy are
immense, and the opportunities for corruption alarming.
The possibility that unqualified and inexperienced individuals will
break critical systems through malice or incompetence is chilling.
In the past few weeks, I have received literally thousands of calls
from concerned constituents, and I expect many of my colleagues have as
well.
Musk and his DOGE bureaucrats are accessing private data, and I am
urging a ``yes'' vote on this amendment that would prohibit their
access to this data or misusing private information.
Voters are worried. They are worried that if they say the wrong thing
or speak up against Trump or DOGE, their bank account information will
end up on Twitter, their tax return won't come, or their family member
won't get their Social Security check.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on amendment No. 1223.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. This amendment is unnecessary. We already have laws on the
books to protect people's information.
The most recent cases I can remember of leaking information like this
involved an IRS contractor who illegally leaked the tax returns of
President Trump, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos to the delight of many on
the other side of the aisle.
That person, fortunately, though, is now in jail, which proves the
point that we already have laws in place to take care of this. This
amendment is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent DOGE from doing the
constructive job of finding waste. This is an amendment that says it is
OK to spend $2 million in Guatemala on sex change surgery. This is an
amendment that says it is OK, look the other way, transgender comic
books in Peru are great. This is an amendment that says it is OK to do
trans operas in Colombia. This is an amendment that attacks people who
are looking to save our money and spend it on legitimate diplomacy, not
crazy, looney, leftwing ideas. And I am done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is on the amendment.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
Mr. COONS. I will accept the voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 1223) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Order of Procedure

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be the final amendments in order; that the amendments be
reported by number; that following disposition of the amendments, the
Senate vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution, as amended, with
no intervening action or debate; finally, if agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table: Lujan 957,
Warren 734, Kelly 984, King 198, Lee 922, Blunt Rochester 311, Murray-
Durbin 880, and Merkley 1207.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. And I would further ask consent these be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 957

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, 41.2 million Americans rely on SNAP to put
food on the table. I would like to call up my amendment No. 957 and ask
it to be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Lujan] proposes an
amendment numbered 957.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike reconciliation instructions requiring damaging cuts
to programs critical to rural Americans and food assistance for
American families)

Strike section 2002(a).

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, 41.2 million Americans rely on SNAP to put
food on the table, and 40 percent of SNAP recipients are children.
The Republican budget resolution before us tonight will dramatically
slash nutrition; conservation; other farm programs for our children,
families, and farmers--all to pay for the Trump tax scam. And we all
know it is only going to benefit the wealthiest Americans.
Now, I want to get a farm bill done, and I think most of us here want
to do that. Taking critical Federal dollars from our rural communities
will make that nearly impossible. And that is not all. This means that
costs will go up for families across America at a time when prices are
already high. The result: Children and families will go hungry. We all
know that that is unacceptable.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. Striking the all-powerful Agriculture Committee's
reconciliation instruction will make it more difficult to pay for
critical improvements for border security and our national defense.
A vote for this amendment indicates the Democrats don't believe there
is a single area of waste, fraud, or abuse in our Federal nutrition
programs.
In 2022 alone, the staff program had an overpayment rate of 10
percent, which amounts to billions of dollars in erroneous payments.
Republicans will find commonsense savings in the Ag Committee's
jurisdiction while ensuring we have a well-targeted, nutrition safety
net for those in need.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 957

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. LUJAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer

[[Page S1116]]

Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 957) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 734

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 734 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Ms. Warren] proposes an
amendment numbered 734.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the general reserve fund)

Beginning on page 52, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 53, line 6, and insert the following:

SEC. 3002. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION THAT
DOES NOT INCREASE TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.

(a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
by the amounts provided in such legislation, provided that
such legislation does not reduce the average tax liability of
taxpayers with income over $10,000,000 and provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over the period of
the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.

Ms. WARREN. As we begin the budget process, Democrats are asking
Republicans questions about the basic principles of what they are
planning to do. The first question is whether there is anyone who is so
rich that Republicans think they don't need a tax giveaway.
My amendment says that anyone who earns more than $10 million a year
won't get a tax cut in the new Republican budget, and I want to know if
Republicans will agree to that. I urge everyone, Democrat or
Republican, to say yes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it seems to me that it is important, as
we conclude tonight, that we admit to the American people what we know
to be true ourselves, and that is that most of these amendments are
fiction. It is professional wrestling. It is the Undertaker v. Andre
the Giant. They have been all foam and no beer. All salt and no
tequila.

Unless you do your research on Instagram, you know that our bill is
going to be not about taxes but about immigration and defense.
There will be time to consider my friend Senator Warren's amendment,
but it won't be on this bill. There will be time to point out that 60
percent of tax cuts in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act affected the
middle class. For that reason I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 24 seconds.
Ms. WARREN. In my 24 seconds, I would like to say we all know what
this is about. You are starting the process for a budget, and we just
want to know the basic principle. Is there anyone so rich that
Republicans think they shouldn't get a tax cut? And my view is, let's
just start the bidding at $10 million. Is that rich enough to say they
are not going to get a tax giveaway from the Republicans?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all foam, no beer.

Vote on Amendment No. 734

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 734) was rejected.

Amendment No. 984

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 984 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kelly] proposes an amendment
numbered 984.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the general reserve fund)

Beginning on page 52, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 53, line 6, and insert the following:

SEC. 3002. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION THAT
DOES NOT INCREASE TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.

(a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
by the amounts provided in such legislation, provided that
such legislation does not reduce the average tax liability of
taxpayers with income over $100,000,000 and provided that
such legislation would not increase the deficit over the
period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, since we now know that $10 million did not
meet the threshold, we are debating who in this country is so rich that
they don't need a tax cut. That one didn't pass. So here is my
proposal: Can we at least agree among all of us that no one making more
than $100 million per year should get a tax cut?
The median income in this country is about $80,000 per year, and it
would take 1,245 years for someone making the median income in America
to earn $100 million. That is about 15 lifetimes.
Does somebody that rich need a tax cut? I don't think so. Vote yes if
you agree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this is the same as the last one. So I am
going to adopt Senator Kennedy's debate and urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 984

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 984) is rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Amendment No. 198

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 198 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Mr. King] proposes an amendment
numbered 198.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the general reserve fund)

Beginning on page 52, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 53, line 6, and insert the following:

SEC. 3002. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION THAT
DOES NOT INCREASE TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY.

(a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger,
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
by the amounts provided in such legislation, provided that
such legislation does not reduce the average tax liability of
taxpayers with income over $500,000,000 and provided that
such legislation would not increase the deficit over the
period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.

Mr. KING. This afternoon I was on the floor. I was privileged to
attend to the remarks of the distinguished chair of the Finance
Committee where he characterized the upcoming tax bill that will be
before us shortly. He characterized it as principally benefiting the
middle class and working class and denied that it would be especially
or in any way beneficial to the superwealthy in our country.
Well, I have always subscribed to Ronald Reagan's motto: Trust but
verify. I am simply asking to verify what the chairman of the Finance
Committee said this afternoon. My amendment would just say: no
reduction in tax liability to someone making more than $500 million.
There are about 400 families in America, and $500

[[Page S1117]]

million seems to me a number that would justify not having a tax
reduction. That is all the amendment does--no tax reduction and
liability for those making more than $500 million.
I urge a ``yes'' vote to verify what we were told on the floor this
afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the third time around, Senator Kennedy's
debate still remains. Vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 198

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 198) was rejected.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1117, February 20, 2025, first column, the following
appears: Vote on Amendment No. 198 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question occurs on the adoption of the amendment. The amendment
(No. 984) was rejected

The online Record has been corrected to read: Vote on Amendment
No. 198 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the adoption
of the amendment. The amendment (No. 198) was rejected

========================= END NOTE =========================

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 922

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 922 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 922.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
Congress continuing its work to rein in the administrative state by
supporting legislation that prevents Federal agencies from finalizing
major rules without congressional approval, strengthens the Article 1
law-making powers of Congress, cuts spending resulting from costly
regulations, reduces inflation, and unleashes economic growth)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
GOVERNMENT DEREGULATION.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Congress, not unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats, should be making our laws. Article I, section 7 of the
Constitution requires nothing less. And yet we generate about 100,000
pages of new laws a year. This is choking the American people.
The prior administration imposed countless rules and regulations that
imposed trillions in new economic costs on the private sector. Many of
these rules have been estimated to increase Federal spending, Federal
mandatory outlays, by hundreds of billions of dollars without
congressional approval.
The Federal Government already spends too much money. This has
contributed to persistent inflation the last couple of years and a debt
level that will soon reach record-level highs that we cannot sustain.
Congress shouldn't allow regulatory-driven spending to continue to
worsen our country's fiscal and economic health. I encourage my
colleagues to support my amendment and demonstrate to the American
people that they are serious about reducing excessive regulatory
burdens. What we are trying to do is to push ``pause'' on these to
bring about the reduction in these mandatory outlays. I encourage my
colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's commitment to
empowering the legislative branch of government. We have worked
together on a bill to rein in Presidential abuse of emergency powers. I
hope we can get that across the finish line sometime this Congress.
Unfortunately, I am concerned that this amendment sets up a complex
and arguably unconstitutional legislative scheme to get rid of
regulations and undermine the bicameral legislative process. Under the
regulatory approval scheme that this amendment tees up, one Chamber of
Congress could effectively nullify the law previously passed by the
whole of Congress simply by not approving a rule of implementation.
This amendment also undermines Agencies' ability to implement key
environmental health and safety laws, endangering the American people.
If Congress wants to repeal a law, we should repeal the law, not
create some new arcane process to sabotage implementation.
I welcome the opportunity to work with colleagues to pass legislation
to strengthen the power of Congress, including to ensure that the
President cannot tear up bipartisan funding bills enacted by Congress.
But I urge my colleagues to reject this potentially unconstitutional
and dangerous deregulatory amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 922

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

YEAS--53

NAYS--47

Amendment No. 311

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 311
and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Ms. Blunt Rochester] proposes an
amendment numbered 311.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
preventing the indiscriminate termination of Federal employees who
protect the health or safety of Americans, which may include
scientists, emergency preparedness staff, frontline health care
workers, drug or medical device reviewers, or other employees at the
Department of Health and Human Services)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PREVENTING THE INDISCRIMINATE TERMINATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO PROTECT THE HEALTH OR
SAFETY OF AMERICANS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE
SCIENTISTS, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS STAFF,
FRONTLINE HEALTH CARE WORKERS, DRUG OR MEDICAL
DEVICE REVIEWERS, OR OTHER EMPLOYEES AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

[[Page S1118]]

care workers, drug or medical device reviewers, or other
employees at the Department of Health and Human Services, by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over the period of the total of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, this amendment would prevent the
wrongful termination of Federal employees who protect the health and
safety of all Americans.
At a time when our country is facing unprecedented workforce
shortages, the Trump administration is thoughtlessly and callously
firing thousands of public servants at the Department of Health and
Human Services and other Departments, putting all of us at risk.
What does this mean? It means delaying cures for cancer. It means
higher prescription drug costs for seniors, which we fought so hard to
lower. It means higher maternity mortality rates and more American
women dying needlessly while giving birth.
Who are these public servants? They are scientists, emergency
preparedness experts, the frontline healthcare workers whom we call
heroes. Bottom line: It is the people who keep us safe and healthy.
While Republicans work to cut taxes for billionaires, they are
slashing the healthcare workforce our communities rely on. On behalf of
our constituents and our country, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
As we have learned tonight, this budget resolution is about unlocking
reconciliation to secure the border and keep Americans safe. This
amendment is unnecessary and delays the budgeting process.
That being said, I look forward to working with the Senator from
Delaware to make HHS great again.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 311

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 311) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 880

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 880 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 880.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
reversing the Trump Administration's indiscriminate cut to biomedical
research and the lifesaving work supported by the National Institutes
of Health at research institutions across the country)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
SUPPORTING LIFE-SAVING RESEARCH FUNDED BY THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Trump administration is working to
destroy medical research as we know it with an illegal, unrealistic cap
on the NIH reimbursement rate for indirect costs. It means cancer
researchers laid off, lifesaving clinical trials canceled, and more,
and it violates the bipartisan appropriations law. I should know--I
helped author that provision. Republicans should know--they worked with
me to pass it.
I yield to the senior Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues know, as I do,
that President Trump's cuts, freezes, gag orders, and firings are
devastating medical research at NIH. Since we get sick on a bipartisan
basis, shouldn't we stand together on a bipartisan basis for medical
research at NIH?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all foam, no beer. This proposal deals
with healthcare spending. I would remind my colleagues and friends that
NIH recently announced their intention to cap indirect costs for
grants. Many of our universities are spending all of the taxpayer money
on overhead. Harvard is spending 69 percent; Yale, 67.5 percent--on
overhead. Isn't that special? Johns Hopkins, 63.7 percent. This will
make Bernie Madoff blush.
I will revise and extend my other remarks: all foam, no beer.

Vote on Amendment No. 880

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 880) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 1207

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1207 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. MERKLEY] proposes an amendment
numbered 1207.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ending price gouging on prescription drugs)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REDUCING
FEDERAL HEALTH PROGRAM SPENDING FOR
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

Mr. MERKLEY. Colleagues, this amendment encourages the opportunity
for Americans to purchase prescription drugs at or near the lower
prices that manufacturers charge to individuals in other similar,
developed nations.
Here is what every American knows: We all invest more in the research
and development to develop drugs than the taxpayers of any other nation
in the entire world, so we should be getting the best price, not the
worst price. This amendment creates an opportunity for us to serve the
American people and get them the fair prices they deserve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment today because it is not relevant to the Finance Committee's
instruction.

Vote on Amendment No. 1207

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman

[[Page S1119]]

Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--51

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 1207) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to my colleagues, it has been a very long
day. To the Budget Committee staff, Nick and your team, thank you very
much.
Through this process, I have gotten to know Senator Merkley better.
It has been a pleasure.
We are one step closer to fixing a problem that all Americans want us
to fix, I think. The man who murdered Laken Riley was released from
detention because we had no bed space. That should never happen again.
There is $175 billion in this bill to make sure we have enough bed
space; we complete, finish the wall, and kick gang members and other
criminals out of the country; $150 billion for a military that has been
worn out--they need the money; and $20 billion for the mighty, mighty
Coast Guard.
We are one step closer to fulfilling the promise Republicans made to
make you safer. I hope we can get one big, beautiful bill in the House,
but we need to act on border security and national security now. We are
running out of time.
Thank you all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I so much appreciate the collaboration
and cooperation and communication between the Budget team here on this
side of the aisle and Senator Graham's team.
We have had the chance to all be on the floor and have the discussion
about issues that we rarely get to have. It isn't quite the give-and-
take that you might see in some legislatures, but we are, in fact, here
wrestling with the national issues.
This budget resolution comes down to one thing, and that is that
families lose and billionaires win. I said at the beginning of the
night that over the course of the evening, amendments would show that
Democrats are standing up for families--on groceries, on healthcare, on
housing, on education, on childcare--and that is what has been
demonstrated tonight.
I still invite our Republican colleagues to join us--join with us--
and help the families of America rather than attacking the programs
that serve them in order to fund tax giveaways for billionaires. Tax
giveaways for billionaires will not make our Nation stronger; stronger
families will make our Nation stronger.

Vote on S. Con. Res. 7

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on adoption of the concurrent resolution, as amended.
Mr. GRAHAM. This bill will be paid for.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

YEAS--52

NAYS--48

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 7), as amended, was agreed
to, as follows:

S. Con. Res. 7

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring),

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2025.

(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2025
and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2025.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Subtitle A--Budgetary Levels in Both Houses

Sec. 1101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 1102. Major functional categories.

Subtitle B--Levels and Amounts in the Senate

Sec. 1201. Social Security in the Senate.
Sec. 1202. Postal Service discretionary administrative expenses in the
Senate.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 2001. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 2002. Reconciliation in the Senate.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 3001. Reserve fund for reconciliation legislation.
Sec. 3002. Reserve fund for deficit-neutral legislation.
Sec, 3003. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to protecting Medicare
and Medicaid.
Sec. 3004. Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to Government
deregulation.

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 4001. Enforcement filing.
Sec. 4002. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
Sec. 4003. Application and effect of changes in allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels.
Sec. 4004. Adjustment authority for revisions to statutory caps.
Sec. 4005. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 4006. Adjustment for changes in the baseline.
Sec. 4007. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Subtitle A--Budgetary Levels in Both Houses

SEC. 1101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $3,853,053,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $4,005,633,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $4,095,208,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $4,221,709,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $4,343,708,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $4,536,585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $4,744,851,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $4,939,252,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $5,155,399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $5,375,311,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025: -$5,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: -$211,035,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: -$421,185,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: -$415,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: -$416,123,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: -$422,056,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: -$435,419,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: -$449,460,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: -$467,244,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: -$484,719,000,000.
(2) Federal revenue changes relative to current policy.--
The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues
should be changed compared to current policy are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $0.

[[Page S1120]]

Fiscal year 2026: $0.
Fiscal year 2027: $0.
Fiscal year 2028: $0.
Fiscal year 2029: $0.
Fiscal year 2030: $0.
Fiscal year 2031: $0.
Fiscal year 2032: $0.
Fiscal year 2033: $0.
Fiscal year 2034: $0.
(3) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $4,660,822,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $4,787,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $4,918,969,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $5,195,931,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $5,348,812,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $5,634,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $5,877,961,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $6,148,105,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $6,480,776,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $6,681,550,000,000.
(4) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $4,636,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $4,803,228,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $4,995,184,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $5,283,709,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $5,338,399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $5,621,606,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $5,845,033,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $6,078,132,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $6,437,602,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $6,592,030,000,000.
(5) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $782,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $797,595,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $899,976,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,062,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $994,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $1,085,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $1,100,182,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $1,138,880,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $1,282,203,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $1,216,719,000,000.
(6) Public debt.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)(5)), the
appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $36,371,784,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $37,521,488,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $38,649,388,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $39,897,925,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $41,251,544,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $42,552,065,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $43,855,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $45,199,622,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $46,803,080,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $48,714,403,000,000.
(7) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $29,141,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $30,151,121,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $31,291,493,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $32,629,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $33,930,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $35,349,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $36,814,512,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $38,364,377,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $40,073,109,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $41,747,907,000,000.

SEC. 1102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2025 through 2034 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $933,481,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $909,629,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $901,220,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $904,412,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $923,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $911,956,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $944,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $934,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $966,203,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $942,419,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $989,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $966,361,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,012,715,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $984,795,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $1,036,723,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,003,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $1,062,319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,037,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $1,087,382,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,054,430,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $65,962,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,206,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $61,716,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $62,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $63,512,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,391,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $64,944,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $66,408,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,077,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $67,878,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $69,343,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $70,874,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,517,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $72,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,889,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $42,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,734,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $41,345,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,844,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $42,264,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,923,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $43,099,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,198,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $44,017,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,887,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $44,980,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,633,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $45,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $46,922,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $47,936,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,460,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $48,985,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,466,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $39,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,587,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $39,958,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,514,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $34,098,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,768,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $34,825,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $35,770,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,582,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $33,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,596,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $35,188,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $39,697,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,611,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $24,489,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,941,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $16,203,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,040,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $88,219,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $67,633,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,552,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $45,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,844,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $45,985,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,673,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $46,956,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $47,707,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,948,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $48,854,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,580,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $49,918,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,444,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $51,246,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $52,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,480,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $58,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,846,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $28,163,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,212,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $31,716,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,686,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $33,008,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $33,334,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $30,857,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,098,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $30,468,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $31,239,000,000.

[[Page S1121]]

(B) Outlays, $30,163,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $32,276,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,893,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $32,912,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,721,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $12,477,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$18,175,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $32,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$626,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $28,145,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,710,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, -$56,796,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$65,194,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $25,562,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,976,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $25,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $25,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $26,354,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,060,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $20,192,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$4,224,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $29,862,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,451,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $173,158,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $144,771,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $167,673,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $152,541,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $132,085,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $158,068,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $133,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $162,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $134,447,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,846,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $129,994,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $150,790,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $130,964,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $147,539,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $138,846,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $150,163,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $140,544,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $149,247,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $142,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $149,454,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $87,762,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,752,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $20,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,267,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $19,259,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,506,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $19,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,101,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $19,888,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,976,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $20,326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,026,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $20,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,543,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $21,007,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,658,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $21,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $21,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,733,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $149,303,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $171,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $152,714,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $151,605,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $154,949,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $150,975,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $157,763,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $152,697,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $160,740,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $155,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $163,649,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $158,173,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $166,633,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $161,098,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $169,998,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $164,267,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $173,554,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $167,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $176,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $170,648,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $945,070,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $961,180,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $992,092,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $976,652,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $1,020,326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,021,179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $1,055,396,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,052,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $1,098,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,094,015,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $1,142,891,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,132,318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,176,522,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,175,476,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $1,226,824,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,216,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $1,276,881,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,266,068,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $1,310,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,298,975,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $950,891,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $950,641,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $1,006,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,008,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $1,066,571,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,066,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $1,209,735,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,208,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $1,125,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,125,229,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $1,275,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,275,566,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,357,791,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,357,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $1,445,195,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,445,191,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $1,663,779,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,663,796,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $1,666,492,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,666,497,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $712,446,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $709,132,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $691,755,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $690,914,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $709,037,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $704,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $727,612,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $727,412,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $729,224,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $715,149,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $748,243,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $739,546,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $761,438,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $752,199,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $779,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $769,491,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $800,819,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $797,512,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $809,385,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $799,089,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $67,259,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,259,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $81,690,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,690,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $89,447,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,447,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $94,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,419,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $100,138,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $106,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $106,208,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $112,114,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $112,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $118,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,485,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $125,325,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $125,325,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $132,539,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $132,539,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $361,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $357,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $382,555,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $378,814,000,000.

[[Page S1122]]

Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $404,594,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $401,319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $427,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $444,241,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $447,757,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $422,317,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $466,616,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $461,720,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $486,716,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $481,638,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $507,187,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $502,655,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $528,733,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $548,734,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $550,662,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $547,796,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $83,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $88,992,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $87,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,420,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $89,687,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,514,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $92,142,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,690,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $94,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,986,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $96,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,869,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $104,463,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,844,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $107,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,339,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $109,431,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $106,934,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $10,089,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,960,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $30,666,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,285,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $32,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,261,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $32,994,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,957,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $33,770,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,793,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $34,614,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $35,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $36,189,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,307,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $36,960,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,758,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $37,681,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,266,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $1,010,050,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,010,050,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $1,022,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,022,935,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $1,064,571,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,064,571,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $1,130,048,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,130,048,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $1,186,820,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,186,820,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $1,237,051,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,237,051,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $1,294,533,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,294,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $1,354,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,354,493,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $1,407,576,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,407,576,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $1,469,426,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,469,426,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,002,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$982,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, -$888,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$899,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, -$890,385,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$894,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, -$848,499,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$850,453,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, -$851,993,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$853,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, -$874,575,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$874,575,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, -$874,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$874,548,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, -$894,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$894,135,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, -$945,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$945,247,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, -$913,790,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$913,790,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, -$127,603,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$127,603,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, -$135,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$135,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, -$137,883,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$137,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, -$141,145,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$141,165,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, -$145,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$145,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, -$149,582,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$149,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, -$154,014,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$154,013,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, -$160,114,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$160,113,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, -$166,102,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$166,101,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, -$171,015,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$171,014,000,000.

Subtitle B--Levels and Amounts in the Senate

SEC. 1201. SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE SENATE.

(a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633 and 642), the amounts of
revenues of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $1,303,924,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $1,363,672,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $1,418,444,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,471,555,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $1,530,067,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $1,590,856,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $1,653,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $1,717,636,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $1,781,872,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $1,848,256,000,000.
(b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633 and 642), the amounts of
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2025: $1,413,704,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026: $1,496,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027: $1,585,399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028: $1,686,635,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029: $1,786,689,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030: $1,890,295,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031: $1,998,538,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032: $2,111,627,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033: $2,224,148,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034: $2,324,954,000,000.
(c) Social Security Administrative Expenses.--In the
Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and budget
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $6,408,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $6,268,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,287,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $6,455,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,422,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $6,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $6,832,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,765,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $7,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:

[[Page S1123]]

(A) New budget authority, $7,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,162,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $7,437,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $7,651,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,576,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $7,869,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,792,000,000.

SEC. 1202. POSTAL SERVICE DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES IN THE SENATE.

In the Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and
budget outlays of the Postal Service for discretionary
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2025:
(A) New budget authority, $268,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,000,000.
Fiscal year 2026:
(A) New budget authority, $279,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2027:
(A) New budget authority, $289,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $289,000,000.
Fiscal year 2028:
(A) New budget authority, $299,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $299,000,000.
Fiscal year 2029:
(A) New budget authority, $309,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $309,000,000.
Fiscal year 2030:
(A) New budget authority, $319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2031:
(A) New budget authority, $330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2032:
(A) New budget authority, $341,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $341,000,000.
Fiscal year 2033:
(A) New budget authority, $352,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $352,000,000.
Fiscal year 2034:
(A) New budget authority, $364,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $364,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 2001. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Committee on Agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture
of the House of Representatives shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less
than $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025
through 2034.
(b) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by
not more than $150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2025 through 2034.
(c) Committee on Education and Workforce.--The Committee on
Education and Workforce of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(d) Committee on Energy and Commerce.--The Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(e) Committee on Natural Resources.--The Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(f) Committee on Homeland Security.--The Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $175,000,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(g) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the
deficit by not more than $175,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(h) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.--The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$20,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(i) Submissions.--In the House of Representatives, not
later than March 7, 2025, the committees named in the
subsections of this section shall submit their
recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the House
of Representatives to carry out this section.

SEC. 2002. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.--The
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that reduce the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(b) Committee on Armed Services.--The Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$150,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(c) Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.--
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that increase the deficit by not more than $20,000,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(d) Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.--The
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce
the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(e) Committee on Environment and Public Works.--The
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase
the deficit by not more than $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(f) Committee on Finance.--The Committee on Finance of the
Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that reduce the deficit by not less than $1,000,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
(g) Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.--
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that reduce the deficit by not less than
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(h) Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.--The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$175,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(i) Committee on the Judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than
$175,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2025 through
2034.
(j) Submissions.--In the Senate, not later than March 7,
2025, the committees named in the subsections of this section
shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate. Upon receiving all such
recommendations, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out
all such recommendations without any substantive revision.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 3001. RESERVE FUND FOR RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION.

(a) House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--In the House of the Representatives, the
chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill or
joint resolution considered pursuant to section 2001
containing the recommendations of one or more committees, or
for one or more amendments to, a conference report on, or an
amendment between the Houses in relation to such a bill or
joint resolution, by the amounts necessary to accommodate the
budgetary effects of the legislation, if the budgetary
effects of the legislation comply with the reconciliation
instructions under this concurrent resolution.
(2) Determination of compliance.--For purposes of this
section, compliance with the reconciliation instructions
under this concurrent resolution shall be determined by the
chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives.
(3) Exception for legislation.--The point of order set
forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives shall not apply to reconciliation legislation
reported by the Committee on the Budget pursuant to
submissions under section 2001.
(b) Senate.--
(1) In general.--In the Senate, the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this resolution, and make
adjustments to the pay-as-you-go ledger, for any bill or
joint resolution considered pursuant to section 2002
containing the recommendations of one or more committees, or
for one or more amendments to, a conference report on, or an
amendment between the Houses in relation to such a bill or
joint resolution, by the amounts necessary to accommodate the
budgetary effects of the legislation, if the budgetary
effects of the legislation comply with the reconciliation
instructions under this concurrent resolution.
(2) Determination of compliance.--For purposes of this
section, compliance with the reconciliation instructions
under this concurrent resolution shall be determined by the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
(3) Exceptions for legislation.--
(A) Short-term.--Section 404 of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2010, as amended by section 3201(b)(2) of S. Con. Res.
11 (114th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2016, shall not apply to legislation for
which the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate has exercised the authority under paragraph (1).
(B) Long-term.--Section 3101 of S. Con. Res. 11 (114th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2016, shall not apply to legislation for which the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate has
exercised the authority under paragraph (1).

SEC. 3002. RESERVE FUND FOR DEFICIT-NEUTRAL LEGISLATION.

(a) Senate.--The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or
committees, aggregates, and other appropriate

[[Page S1124]]

levels in this resolution, and make adjustments to the pay-
as-you-go ledger, for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or
conference reports by the amounts provided in such
legislation, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal
years 2025 through 2034.
(b) House of Representatives.--The chair of the Committee
on the Budget of the House of Representatives may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this concurrent resolution for
one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, or
conference reports by the amounts provided in such
legislation, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit for the period of fiscal year 2025 to
fiscal year 2034.

SEC. 3003. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROTECTING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

SEC. 3004. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
GOVERNMENT DEREGULATION.

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 4001. ENFORCEMENT FILING.

(a) In the House of Representatives.--In the House of
Representatives, if a concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2025 is adopted without the appointment of a
committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses with respect to this concurrent resolution on the
budget, for the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) and applicable rules and
requirements set forth in the concurrent resolution on the
budget, the allocations provided for in this subsection shall
apply in the House of Representatives in the same manner as
if such allocations were in a joint explanatory statement
accompanying a conference report on the budget for fiscal
year 2025. The chair of the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives shall submit a statement for
publication in the Congressional Record containing--
(1) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee
allocations for fiscal year 2025 consistent with title I for
the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633); and
(2) for all committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations, committee allocations consistent with title I
for fiscal year 2025 and for the period of fiscal years 2025
through 2034 for the purpose of enforcing 302 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633).
(b) In the Senate.--If this concurrent resolution on the
budget is agreed to by the Senate and House of
Representatives without the appointment of a committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may
submit a statement for publication in the Congressional
Record containing--
(1) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee
allocations for fiscal year 2025 consistent with the levels
in title I for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633); and
(2) for all committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2025,
2025 through 2029, and 2025 through 2034 consistent with the
levels in title I for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633).

SEC. 4002. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

(a) Senate.--
(1) In general.--In the Senate, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)(1)), section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of
1990 (2 U.S.C. 632 note), and section 2009a of title 39,
United States Code, the report or the joint explanatory
statement accompanying this concurrent resolution on the
budget or the statement filed pursuant to section 4001(b), as
applicable, shall include in an allocation under section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)) to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate of
amounts for the discretionary administrative expenses of the
Social Security Administration and the United States Postal
Service.
(2) Special rule.--In the Senate, for purposes of enforcing
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 633(f)), estimates of the level of total new budget
authority and total outlays provided by a measure shall
include any discretionary amounts described in paragraph (1).
(b) House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--In the House of Representatives,
notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)(1)), section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 632 note), and section
2009a of title 39, United States Code, the report or the
joint explanatory statement accompanying this concurrent
resolution on the budget or the statement filed pursuant to
section 4001(a), as applicable, shall include in an
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) to the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives of amounts for
the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration and the United States Postal Service.
(2) Special rule.--In the House of Representatives, for
purposes of enforcing section 302(f) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(f)), estimates of the level
of total new budget authority and total outlays provided by a
measure shall include any discretionary amounts described in
paragraph (1).

SEC. 4003. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS,
AGGREGATES, AND OTHER BUDGETARY LEVELS.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels made pursuant to this
concurrent resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations, Aggregates, and Other
Budgetary Levels.--Revised allocations, aggregates, and other
budgetary levels resulting from these adjustments shall be
considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) as the allocations,
aggregates, and other budgetary levels contained in this
concurrent resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
concurrent resolution, the levels of new budget authority,
outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority,
revenues, deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period
of fiscal years shall be determined on the basis of estimates
made by the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the
applicable House of Congress.

SEC. 4004. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY FOR REVISIONS TO STATUTORY
CAPS.

During the 119th Congress, if a legislative measure is
enacted that revises the discretionary spending limit
established under subsection (c) of section 251 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 901), the Chair of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate may, consistent with the legislative measure and as
necessary--
(1) adjust the allocation required under section 302(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) to the
appropriate committee or committees of the Senate; and
(2) adjust all other budgetary aggregates, allocations,
levels, and limits established under this Concurrent
Resolution.

SEC. 4005. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

(a) House of Representatives.--In the House of
Representatives, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
adjust the appropriate aggregates, allocations, and other
budgetary levels in this concurrent resolution for any change
in budgetary concepts and definitions consistent with section
251(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(1)).
(b) Senate.--In the Senate, upon the enactment of a bill or
joint resolution providing for a change in concepts or
definitions, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may make adjustments to the levels and allocations
in this concurrent resolution in accordance with section
251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)).

SEC. 4006. ADJUSTMENT FOR CHANGES IN THE BASELINE.

The chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may adjust the allocations, aggregates,
and other appropriate budgetary levels in this concurrent
resolution to reflect changes resulting from the
Congressional Budget Office's updates to its baseline for
fiscal years 2025 through 2034, including the effects of
legislation enacted before the date on which this concurrent
resolution is agreed to.

[[Page S1125]]

SEC. 4007. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House
or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such
rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that
they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either the Senate or the House of Representatives to change
those rules (insofar as they relate to that House) at any
time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as is the
case of any other rule of the Senate or House of
Representatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, tonight, one amendment at a time,
Democrats exposed Republicans' true colors here on the Senate floor.
For the first time this year, Senate Republicans were forced to go on
record and defend their plans to cut taxes for Donald Trump's
billionaire friends.
What happened tonight was only the beginning. This debate is going to
go on for weeks and maybe months. Democrats will be ready to come back
and do this over and over again because Americans deserve to know the
truth. And what is the truth? Under Donald Trump's Republican Party,
billionaires win and American families lose. Billionaires win and
American families lose. That is it. That is the Republican agenda.
Tonight, we gave Republicans one chance after another to do the right
thing and put the needs of American families first. We voted on
amendments to prevent any tax cuts for billionaires paid for with cuts
to Medicaid. Republicans said no. We voted on an amendment to protect
maternal and children's healthcare from draconian cuts. Republicans
said no. We voted on an amendment to make it easier for Americans to
rent or own a home. Republicans said no. Again and again and again,
Republicans sent a clear and consistent message from the Senate floor:
Under their agenda, billionaires win and American families lose.
If Republicans continue with this reckless plan to help their
billionaire buddies at the expense of American families, Democrats will
make sure the American people know the truth at every opportunity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________