[Pages S3222-S3228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       One Big Beautiful Bill Act

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I am joining my colleagues today to 
speak in opposition to the Republicans' catastrophic budget bill that 
will end healthcare coverage for millions of American families so that 
President Trump can orchestrate the largest transfer of wealth from the 
poor and the working class to the ultrarich that we have ever seen in 
this country.
  This bill has nearly $1 trillion in healthcare cuts, including over 
$800 billion in Medicaid cuts. In total, the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office estimates that this bill would not only add $2.4 trillion 
to our national deficit, but it also kicks 16 million Americans off of 
their health insurance in the next 10 years. In Nevada, that means 
about 95,271 people will lose their healthcare and 66,571 will be 
kicked off of Medicaid.
  These numbers alone should at least give my Republican colleagues 
pause, make them think about how devastating this bill would be for our 
working families, and maybe even reconsider moving forward with trying 
to ram it through Congress.
  But there is more to this than just these big numbers, and it needs 
to be brought to light. I was just home in Nevada meeting with 
Nevadans, hospitals, and providers. With the Medicaid cuts they are 
anticipating from this billionaire tax giveaway, hospitals are bracing 
themselves not just for coverage losses but for the downstream impact 
on care and costs. This is going to affect our most vulnerable 
populations in Nevada--seniors, children, veterans, parents of children 
with rare diseases, pregnant women, and our elderly in nursing homes.
  When people lose coverage, they delay their care. A single mom who is 
living paycheck to paycheck and is worried about putting food on the 
table for her kids is not going to go to the doctor if she has a 
persistent cough; she will wait. But that means that when her cough 
turns serious, making it harder for her to breathe, she will have to go 
to the emergency room for treatment. By then, it is more dangerous for 
her and more expensive for everyone involved. The hospital she goes to 
has to treat her regardless of whether or not she has health insurance. 
If she can't pay, the hospital is on the hook for the cost of her care.
  Now, if you are in a rural or underserved area, of which we have many 
in Nevada and across the country, and the one hospital for miles can't 
afford to keep those doors open, it may scale back or close altogether. 
The hospital staff has to choose which services to cut. Labor and 
delivery? Mental health care? Trauma units? These are services entire 
communities rely on. Or will they be forced to close entirely if they 
can't make up the cost?
  In rural Nevada, people sometimes have to drive 2, 3, 4 hours to see 
their doctor. A hospital closure would be devastating for rural 
families trying to access even basic care. That is the danger we are 
facing with this bill.
  This isn't just about Medicaid patients. As providers look to cover 
the cost of treating more uninsured patients, those expenses will shift 
to everyone, to working families and to employers, and premiums and 
out-of-pocket costs will soar--all so that this President and 
Republicans can pay for tax cuts for billionaires.
  You know, this is also going to impact Nevadans who rely on the 
Affordable Care Act for their medical insurance. Republicans, in their 
bill, cut almost $300 billion from the ACA marketplace plans, and that 
would kick

[[Page S3223]]

about 29,000 Nevada small business owners, middle-class families, and 
legal immigrants, like Dreamers, off their healthcare. It would also 
increase Medicare premiums for over 1 million seniors, and it could end 
healthcare coverage for 1.5 million children. These are real people who 
are going to lose their coverage as a result of this bill.
  This impact would be lasting. This bill is so expensive that it would 
force Congress to make even more Medicare cuts in the future. For those 
who don't immediately get kicked off their health insurance as a result 
of cuts to Medicaid, my Republican colleagues want to implement 
burdensome work reporting requirements so they can take away coverage 
from even more Americans to pay for those billionaire tax cuts.
  In Nevada, over 67 percent of Medicaid recipients are already 
working, but if this bill passes, those working families will have to 
jump through even more government reporting hoops to prove they work. 
We know from States that have tried this--like Arkansas--that people 
lost Medicaid not because they didn't meet the requirements but because 
they couldn't keep up with the redtape.
  Think about this: People working who already have access to 
Medicaid--they are making it harder for them to get it, which means 
that if you lose your Medicaid, your insurance, there is a possibility 
that if your health gets worse, you are going to lose your job. We are 
going backwards.

  This bill has complex paperwork, frequent deadlines, and little 
flexibility to the everyday lives of hard-working mothers, veterans, 
and families across the country. And why again? Because the 
Republicans' goal is to take Medicaid away from as many people as 
possible so that they can find revenue to pay for the tax cuts for 
billionaires.
  Think about what I said at the beginning: It is the biggest shift--
shift--in our country of wealth from the poor and the working class to 
the billionaire class. Instead of making the billionaires pay for this, 
they are taking it off the backs of the very people that are working in 
this country in the middle class, and they are preventing the poor from 
getting into the middle class, and they are making it harder for the 
middle class.
  This is absolutely absurd, it is un-American, and we cannot--we 
cannot--accept this as our new normal. So my Democratic colleagues and 
I are going to continue to stand against this outrageous and dangerous 
bill because we know that the American public deserves better. 
Americans deserve a Congress that is helping to lift the poor into the 
middle class and helping the middle class have their lives be a little 
bit easier.
  If we are talking about who should pay their fair share, well, I can 
guarantee you, if we polled Americans, they would say it is the 
billionaire class. The billionaire class should pay their fair share 
and not make it harder--not make it harder--for the poor and the 
working class just to get by and just to get through the day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the 228,000 
Wisconsinites whose healthcare is on the chopping block if Republicans 
get their way.
  At a time when Wisconsin families are asking us to take on the 
skyrocketing costs of healthcare and prescription drugs, Congressional 
Republicans are doing just the opposite. My Republican colleagues are 
not using their time and energy to go after greedy corporations, not to 
take on the big drug companies, and not to expand access to affordable 
healthcare, but they are instead forging ahead with a bill that will 
kick millions of Americans off of their insurance and jack up the cost 
of healthcare for millions more.
  I keep hearing my colleagues falsely claim that we are exaggerating 
how horrible this plan is for working families. They want to pretend 
these cuts are just going after waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I am not here to engage in a ``he said, she said'' about this. The 
Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan analyst, released a new 
report today and found that the Republican plan will result in 16 
million Americans losing their healthcare. That means that those last-
minute changes that were made in the middle of the night in the House 
resulted in 2 million more people being kicked off their healthcare. Of 
those 16 million, nearly 150,000 Wisconsinites will lose their Medicaid 
coverage.
  Sadly, it doesn't stop there. This bill is yet another attempt to 
chip away at the Affordable Care Act. In my State, over 80,000 
Wisconsinites will be priced out of their affordable care, and more 
will see their marketplace coverage costs skyrocket.
  We are talking about children with disabilities, grandparents, 
working families, and so many more whose healthcare is literally right 
now in jeopardy.
  I heard from Annette in Kenosha, WI. She has three children, 
including a sixth grader with severe special needs. She wrote to me 
about her daughter Maya's first year before they got access to 
Medicaid. She said:

       We paid $16,000 out-of-pocket after insurance for her 
     hospital bills, surgery, and appointments. It destroyed our 
     savings and pushed us to the brink of losing everything. 
     Medicaid is not fraud, waste, or abuse. Medicaid supports 
     kids like Maya who are in desperate need, and the families 
     who love them.

  She told me that she doesn't plan to stay on Medicaid forever, but 
that program ``has been a Godsend to us [right] now. It was a rigorous 
process to qualify. I hope other families like mine will have the 
support they need to keep their families healthy.''
  I also heard from Evan in Madison, WI, who has undergone two brain 
surgeries and subsequent radiation over the last 10 years to treat 
brain tumors, in part paid for by Medicaid. He wrote to me:

       I sacrificed a lot to hopefully become a part of the 
     working class. . . . [I]f Trump meddles any further with my 
     health care, I won't be able to afford my medication that 
     literally gives me the ability to go out and be a part of my 
     community.

  Take Kevin in De Pere, WI, whose 19-year-old son has Down syndrome 
and relies on Medicaid for care. Kevin had a message for my colleagues 
who are considering advancing any cuts to Medicaid. He wrote:

       I ask that you remember that Medicaid . . . is not about 
     dollars, it's about dignity, opportunity, and ensuring that 
     all individuals, regardless of ability, can thrive.

  For Americans like Kevin and Annette and Evan, Medicaid is a 
lifeline. Without it, millions of families would forgo their care or 
face almost certain financial ruin. But congressional Republicans are 
putting all of that on the line, making Americans jump through more 
hoops and ever more redtape to access their lifesaving care. And why? 
To kick enough eligible people off Medicaid to pay for their tax cuts 
that overwhelmingly benefit corporations and their special interest 
donors--the very same corporations that jack up the cost of healthcare 
on Americans in the first place.
  As deep as these cuts are, they fall far short of the total cost of 
the handouts that the Republicans are proposing in the form of tax cuts 
for the wealthy and corporations. Their plan won't just kick 16 million 
Americans off their health insurance or 4 million Americans off of food 
assistance, the Republicans' plan will also balloon the deficit by $3 
trillion over the next decade.
  While Republicans spend the rest of their summer figuring out how to 
pass their agenda that puts their campaign donors and corporations 
ahead of working families, I will keep raising the alarm bells about 
the real Wisconsinites whose health and lives are in the balance if 
they get their way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in talking 
about one of the terrible elements of this bill, and that is it is 
going to take away Medicaid coverage, healthcare for--this morning, it 
was 13.7 million people across this country, including Vermont and 
including Missouri. But we just got an update: It is 16 million people; 
16 million people are going to lose healthcare.
  And this Medicaid Program that provides access to low-income folks, 
to kids with disabilities, and, of course, those parents who do so much 
to care for their child with special needs--they need that Medicaid to 
be able to keep body and soul together and give that

[[Page S3224]]

child that they love the best they can possibly have.
  It provides healthcare for two out of three seniors who are in 
nursing homes. Medicaid pays for those hospital beds.
  So how is it that at a time when healthcare is expensive--it is 
getting out of reach for more and more people; it is the biggest 
expense many families face--that we are actually considering in the 
U.S. Senate a bill that would take away healthcare from 16 million 
people? It is hard to believe that the U.S. Senate has any degree of 
appreciation for the reality of the everyday lives of folks who depend 
on this healthcare.
  The legislation also takes away subsidies that have made it 
affordable for people to buy into the Affordable Care Act, known as 
ObamaCare. It is the margin that is necessary for millions of people to 
be able to continue to get healthcare coverage through the Affordable 
Care Act.
  So we literally have a piece of legislation that is going to take 
away this healthcare for individuals. It is going to take away 
healthcare from families who are getting access through the Affordable 
Care Act.
  This bill also is cutting nutrition programs. The SNAP benefits 
really matter for lower income families. It is how they feed their 
kids. And in your community and in mine, we have thousands of 
volunteers who put together food shelves, community food programs; they 
do Meals on Wheels; they volunteer to do everything they possibly can 
to help our kids in school with nutrition, to help with the Meals on 
Wheels for our seniors and then, of course, to distribute and help with 
the SNAP program. Millions of Americans are going to lose that. And, by 
the way, that SNAP benefit amounts to about 6 bucks a day, maybe a 
little more. Hardly a big bonanza but an incredibly important component 
of keeping body and soul together. It is the meals that are so 
essential to the well-being not just of our seniors but to our 
children.
  So all of this is being done as a way of ``paying for'' legislation 
that is going to lower taxes. And I don't know how it works for you in 
Missouri, but when I am talking to Vermonters, nobody has come up to me 
and said: Peter, you have got to get to work on getting me that tax 
cut.
  Nobody believes that there is a tax cut in this bill that is going to 
be anything at all meaningful to them in their struggles with affording 
paying their bills at the end of each month.
  Now, if you are in the uberwealthy class, you would get $250,000. 
That is real money, although for some of those folks who are making 
millions of dollars a year, it won't even be anything they notice.
  But why is it that we are pushing through this legislation that will 
provide a tax cut to folks who, by and large, don't need it, will do 
very little for working-class people, will have a negative impact on 
their ability to pay their bills, especially the ones who are going to 
lose access to Medicaid, especially folks who are going to lose access 
to food stamps or the SNAP benefits that are so essential to their 
well-being? And that is on top of all of those folks having to pay more 
because of the tariffs.
  So this is an assault on the budgets of working families in America. 
That is what it really is. It is going to shrink their take-home pay at 
the end of the month. That is literally what it is we are doing. And 
for what? To provide a tax cut that is not going to be meaningful for 
the vast majority of Americans who really will end up paying more 
through tariffs and lost access to healthcare and nutrition programs 
than they will ever even in the wildest stretch of the imagination get 
from the so-called tax cut bill, the Big Beautiful Bill.
  But there is another part of this that is so damaging, and especially 
for those of us representing rural America. Individuals need 
healthcare, but they can't get healthcare unless they can go to a 
community hospital, unless they can go to a community health center, 
unless they can go to a private practitioner who accepts Medicaid 
reimbursement.
  All of those people who lose access to Medicaid to pay those bills 
are going to continue to show up at the doctor's office. They are going 
to show up at the emergency room. They are going to go to our community 
hospitals. They are going to go to our community health centers. And 
those health centers and those doctors will continue to do everything 
that they can to provide care, even if they don't get paid.
  But at a certain point, they can't continue. They can't keep the 
doors open, they can't pay salaries to staff. They can't pay the light 
bill.
  So what this does is not only take away access to healthcare for 
individuals, it starts to unravel the healthcare system to deliver 
healthcare to people in the community. Those institutions that lose the 
modest revenue reimbursement that you get from Medicaid--far less than 
Medicare, far less than private pay--are going to lose that revenue. 
And those institutions, those hospitals, those practices already 
operating on a very thin margin are going to go out of business.
  And then what happens? We put all of the pressure for paying for the 
healthcare system on the private sector. And what we have seen over and 
over again is the so-called cost shift. It is a real thing. It is not a 
so-called cost shift; it is real. So the more money you take out of 
Medicaid, the more money and more burden you put on the private 
insurance market.
  And who pays that? A lot of our employers. You know, in Vermont--I am 
sure this is true in Missouri--our employers care about their 
employees, and there is a struggle every year for employers who want to 
provide employer-sponsored healthcare when they get the sticker shock 
of a 10-, 15-, or a 25-percent increase in premiums. And that always 
then forces the discussion about ``Do we want to give a raise?'' or 
``Do we want to just maintain benefits but pay for the higher premium 
with what would have been your raise?'' So that is further pressure.
  So this bill does real harm to individuals, but it really also starts 
to continue and accelerate the unraveling of a financially insecure 
medical payment system.
  So why do we do this? It is hard to answer. You know, it is a 
theoretical benefit. The theory here is if you lower taxes, you will 
boost the economy. We have been hearing that since Reagan, and that is 
very much in dispute, especially when the lower taxes go to folks who 
don't need it, and the folks who are struggling to pay their bills 
aren't getting much relief and are getting higher costs from tariffs 
and getting higher costs because they are losing access to healthcare, 
and this is going to weaken our communities.
  And then of course, finally, what we are going to see is a 
significant increase in our debt. And the recent CBO scores, I think, 
put it at $2.8 trillion. And what are we getting for that? You know, 
sometimes a country has to borrow like we did in World War II. 
Sometimes you have to borrow like we did during COVID. Sometimes you 
have to borrow to rescue the economy like we did after the 2008 Wall 
Street crash. And you know why you are doing it.
  But when you are in better times where you don't have this market 
collapse, you don't have this mass pandemic, that is not the time to be 
adding to the debt. And what it does is it means that in the future, if 
we do have to borrow for an emergency, our capacity to do it is more 
limited.
  And what it is also doing right now is raising interest rates. And as 
interest rates go up, the cost of debt service on our budget goes up. 
And right now--right now--the biggest expenditure of taxpayer money is 
to pay interest on the debt that is escalating exponentially. So we are 
spending more on debt service than we do on the military. We are 
spending more on debt service than we do on Medicare and way more than 
we are on Medicaid. And by adding to the debt, it is clearly putting 
pressure on interest rates, raising what it is taxpayers have to pay.
  So there is nothing good in this bill for the working person or for 
their small businesses that when they need to borrow money, they are 
much better off if they can get a lower rate of interest or when a 
family has to get a car loan, they can get a lower rate of interest or 
a mortgage, they can get a lower rate of interest. It is the exact 
opposite.
  So we have got families who are paying more because of tariffs, 
losing a lot because they are losing their Medicaid eligibility and 
losing their access to the Affordable Care Act, and then everybody is 
paying more because of the

[[Page S3225]]

high interest associated with the escalation in the debt.
  We should kill this bill, and I would urge all of my colleagues to 
take into consideration how this is going to affect the people whom 
each of us represents.
  You know, there is a bipartisan element to this bill. The bipartisan 
aspect of this bill is that everybody is going to share the pain of 
what this bill does. It is folks in red States. It is the folks in the 
blue States. Whether they voted for Harris or they voted for Trump, if 
they lose their Medicaid, that hurts; if they lose their community 
hospital, that hurts; if they pay higher interest rates, that hurts.
  Let's come to our senses and vote against this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator 
Welch, the great Senator from Vermont, for shining a spotlight on 
Donald Trump and the Republicans' attack on healthcare in their so-
called Big Beautiful Bill.
  Let's be honest about what the Republican bill really is. It is 
repeal and replace by another name--not one fell swoop but death by a 
thousand papercuts.
  They are afraid to say they want to kill healthcare, Medicaid, ACA; 
so instead, they put so many barriers in the way that, in effect, they 
are doing the same thing.
  They are doing the same thing with Social Security.
  We have all heard how this bill will devastate Medicaid. It is the 
largest cut in history. Every day you learn more about this bill, it 
gets worse. It includes over $1 trillion--$1 trillion--in healthcare 
cuts--cuts to the ACA, even cuts to Medicare. We have been learning 
that Medicare will be hurt as well by the sequestration.
  And today, if you didn't think it could get worse with this ``Big 
Ugly Bill,'' it sure did. The CBO just announced that their bill will 
kick millions more people off their healthcare than we originally 
thought, not only by attacking Medicaid, but by crippling the ACA 
private insurance and even Medicare now.
  Yesterday, it was 13.7 million people who would lose coverage. Today, 
it is as high as 16 million. You know, that is a big number, 16 
million. It is families; it is people who need healthcare; people whose 
kids might have cancer and they are desperate to get something done; 
elderly who are paying so much for medicine, they can't afford to go to 
a doctor to see if the medicine is working; families that are just 
starting out and maybe someone lost his or her job. Yes, 16 million, 
but that is each person, a family, a group.
  The more you look at the House bill, the worse it gets. Enrollment 
times will be shortened by an entire month. Wait times will be longer 
for everyone at the hospital. And 22 million people--22 million 
people--could see their average premium go up by an average of 93 
percent. Small business owners--3.3 million--will see their premiums 
skyrocket. Hospitals, nursing homes, health centers are all at risk.
  I have been at nursing homes in many parts of my State. Guess what? 
They are all afraid they are going to close because 60 percent, 70 
percent of their income is Medicaid. That is how they take care of the 
elderly. And those people will lose their coverage and be forced to 
leave because the nursing home will close.
  Well, how about those 45-year-old couples with three kids? They have 
no extra room in the house and Mom has to come back because she has no 
place to go; and there won't be adequate healthcare there at home.
  And job loss. Job loss on this ``Big Ugly Bill''--this betrayal--
850,000 will lose their jobs in healthcare alone, another 800,000 in 
clean energy, and many, many more. Millions are losing their jobs.
  I don't know what the economists would think, but when you lose 2 
million jobs, if that is the case, you are right on the edge of a 
recession, if not in one.
  And despite all this, Donald Trump has the gall to lie and say that 
his bill wouldn't harm Americans' healthcare. He says no one will lose 
coverage. Ladies and gentlemen, people of America, Donald Trump is 
lying. The bill will kick people off their healthcare coverage. It will 
slash healthcare benefits. It will close rural hospitals. People will 
get sicker and die.
  What did the junior Senator from Iowa say?

       Well, we are all going to die.

  How about the junior Senator from Louisiana?

       I'm not worried about people losing their healthcare.

  It shows the callousness of the Republican Senators when it comes to 
healthcare. They don't seem to care. They seem to say ``Tough luck.''
  Republicans should forget calling this their ``One Big Beautiful 
Bill.'' You know what the new name for this bill is, a more suitable 
name? The ``We're All Going to Die Act.'' The ``We're All Going to Die 
Act'' because that just about sums up how callous they are being with 
the American people.
  For many Americans, healthcare is the difference between life and 
death. Democrats will fight this bill with everything we have. The 
American people deserve to know the truth.
  And one more point. I would say to my colleagues, Donald Trump is 
selling you Republican colleagues a bill of goods: It is not going to 
hurt anybody. Don't believe his false words because when you vote for 
this bill, the effects will actually occur, and the public will realize 
what you have done. So don't let Donald Trump sell you a bill of goods. 
We know he makes things up out of the clear blue all the time. He is 
doing it now. And when he calls you in and tells you that no one is 
going to be hurt, no one is going to lose coverage, you know that is a 
crock of you-know-what. I can't say it here. Don't listen to him 
because your constituents will pay an awful price in healthcare. And 
they will know you did it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
the President's request to Congress this week to eliminate $9.4 billion 
in funding that has already been passed and signed into law. Let's say 
that again--that has already been passed and signed into law.
  Anyone who watches ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' and listens to the song 
knows how a bill becomes a law. A Republican-led House at the time and 
a Democratic-led Senate came together; they made an agreement; they 
passed a bill; and it was signed into law by the then-President. But 
this President thinks he can just come in and change everything when it 
comes to really important things for people in this country that I am 
about to get to. That is just not how it works. We have got to do our 
jobs, and people need to stand up and say: This is our part of the job. 
We make the decisions about the funding. The President can veto them. 
He can work with us, you know, as we could be doing right now. Instead, 
it is just a one-pony show, but that is how this place works.
  So what this proposal would do would gut funding that has already 
been appropriated for broadcasting--public broadcasting--and slash 
critical international aid funding, which are programs that have long 
had bipartisan support. I am the daughter of a newspaperman. I care a 
lot about people getting information, getting news, and right now, I 
care a lot about it in rural America because there has been such a 
breakdown of news coverage--of small newspapers that have folded, in 
part, because we won't do anything about the social media companies--
about Facebook and Google--and how they are able to use the content 
without being reimbursed. We just let it sit there as their lobbyists 
come in and stop it.
  But while we are doing that in a lot of these areas now, the only 
news--the only way for them to find out about what is going on with a 
storm or what is happening with a wildfire or what is even happening 
with their local softball team or what is happening with the high 
school or what business is opening or closing--is through these sources 
of public radio and public TV.
  Public broadcasting reaches nearly 99 percent of Americans with free 
programming, delivering lifesaving emergency alerts by the local news 
and shows that talk about what is actually happening locally and what 
is true and

[[Page S3226]]

what is happening and what events are going on and when they can attend 
the school fair--all those kinds of things. But President Trump has 
decided to try to claw back the money Congress has already provided, I 
guess, to pay for these tax cuts for the wealthiest and to try to claw 
it back for over 1,500 local and regional public TV and radio stations 
throughout the country. Many of these stations provide free, high-
quality programming to millions of households in rural areas. A lot of 
them don't even have what they need to see it online, and this is 
actually how they get their news. Even without that, they are in their 
cars a lot. They have a long way to drive, and they get a lot of stuff 
off the radio.
  I know that in my State this will be particularly devastating. We 
have a lot of rural areas. Minnesota has a long history of public radio 
and TV programming. Every week, 20 million people across the country 
listen to the Minnesota Public Radio programs that were originally 
produced by the Marketplace, right? Since 1967, its award-winning news 
operation has documented some of the most important stories of our 
time. With Minnesotans coming from Cambodia and as to what was 
happening there, it was public radio that was covering that. In 1988, 
MPR's Main Street radio produced a documentary called ``Against the 
Grain,'' which gave rural Minnesotans the mic to talk about how they 
were handling economic change. In 2007, MPR News covered every detail 
of the collapse of the I-35W bridge, which was, of course, also warning 
people of where they had to go, of what was happening, of what was 
closed down. They are covering research on dementia, State plans for K 
through 12 education. The legislative session right now--both the 
public TV and public radio stations--are diligently covering every 
single detail of that while so many other news organizations have gone 
away or broken down.
  What do we want to have--no coverage of a city council in Bemidji, 
MN? We don't want to know what is happening on Main Street? We don't 
want to know, when a flood comes in, what stores are open and when? Why 
would we decide to cut ourselves off from information at this moment in 
time?
  Public TV is a place where so many people get their news that 58 
percent of households watch PBS programming in a year. PBS Kids? There 
are 15 million monthly viewers of PBS Kids, and, yes, that is right. 
They don't get exposed to all the advertising and all the stuff they 
would see online because they are watching the PBS Kids. I think that 
is actually a pretty cool thing for our country that there is a place 
that kids can watch these programs. Every month, 36 million Americans 
watch their local PBS.
  I was just at KSMQ TV in Austin, MN. I am sure most of the people 
haven't heard of it, but, boy, to the people in Austin, it is pretty 
important. For tens of thousands of people, that is where they get 
their news--72 percent. The former Republican Senate leader in the 
State senate is on the board because they know this is a place that can 
find out about local news or what is happening and where they can find 
out about local news in places like Granite Falls, MN, and in places 
like Bemidji, MN.
  All across the country, in times of crisis, public radio and TV are 
essential to public safety. While many other news sources lost power 
and the internet during Hurricane Helene, Asheville's Blue Ridge Public 
Radio stayed online, bringing lifesaving news and information to the 
over 500,000 people in the region who were without power. When 
Hurricane Milton devastated the Tampa area, local public station 
WUSF hosted live call-in shows. It aired frequent local news briefings 
and maintained a regularly updated live blog with a text-only bandwidth 
option to keep residents informed and safe before and after the storm.

  I have been in so many areas of my State in a time of crisis of 
flooding, where you go down there, and the mayor in a really small town 
is sitting there, but he is live-streaming on their local public access 
because that is the way. Where else are people going to go? Are they 
going to try 80 different platforms on social media? Hmm. Are they 
going to go and try to figure out which local TV station in the Twin 
Cities--miles away--is, maybe, showing something every so often about 
their problems? They go to public access purely for safety's sake and 
much less for kids seeing really good programming that is free of all 
the commercial aspects that are coming kids' ways every single day. 
There is the interesting, in-depth kind of reporting you can have on a 
place like Marketplace for what is happening with the economy or 
something to listen to when you are driving for hours and hours and 
hours that doesn't mean endless ads and endless marketing because you 
actually get to hear the news or you actually get to hear some music 
you like.
  That is what public TV and public radio do for us. It is a treasure 
in our country. Public broadcasting creates a more informed community 
through quality programming on local and national events, and I think 
it is really going to be important, as we debate this in the next few 
weeks, to remember that ``local'' part. It shines a light on the 
people, places, history, and stories that are the fabric of towns and 
cities that are addressing the most pressing issues. We must support 
these vital resources that give voice to important local issues that 
wouldn't otherwise be heard. They are going to be lost to history. It 
is going to be a future erosion of the fabric.
  So what do people do instead? Oh, go look on Twitter and see if you 
can protect your kids from a bunch of bad stuff that is on there. I use 
it. A bunch of us in here--almost all of us--have accounts. It is an 
important way to reach people. I am not cutting it down, but I would 
much rather have a kid in my State be watching the programming on 
public radio than looking on social media accounts right now or be 
watching it on public TV and listening to the radio. It is a safe space 
for them to get some programming.
  The President's request would also deepen the damage this 
administration has done to our standing in the world through reckless 
cuts to foreign aid. I will give you one example. The President would 
impose major cuts to PEPFAR, the program that began under President 
George W. Bush to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Over many years, this 
program has earned consistent bipartisan support across 4 
administrations and 10 Congresses. It is credited with saving over 25 
million lives. These programs not only demonstrate Americans' 
humanitarian leadership, which certainly helps when you need a friend 
when there is a conflict going on abroad and you can point to things 
that you did in working with other countries, but they are also good 
for our country. We know that you just can't bury your head in the sand 
and hope that these problems in other countries and diseases aren't 
heading your way, whether it is Ebola or malaria or the bird flu. 
Oftentimes, these things come in from other countries. A pandemic, 
right? They come in from other countries.
  So why would we, at this moment in time, cut off our investments in 
public health and in food aid and other things that are not only right, 
based on your belief that we are part of this world, and your faith or 
whatever makes you believe that, if we can save some lives for a small 
part of the Federal budget in America? Because we are so good at 
innovation and we are so good at producing things, and, yes, we have 
some extra food, and, yes, we have some rural economy that we want to 
keep strong, but also, just from a purely American, selfish version of 
this--and I don't mean ``selfish'' like a bad thing; I mean ``selfish'' 
like looking out for ourselves and our country--you would want to work 
with the rest of the world so these diseases don't come through your 
doors or you don't shut out and anger other countries when 90 percent 
of our customers, potential customers, are outside of our borders. You 
want to be able to sell stuff to them but not if we cut ourselves off 
from the rest of the world and make fun of them and call them the 51st 
State.
  The President's proposed cuts to funding for UNICEF are also 
misguided. I was one of those kids at Halloween who would go trick-or-
treating. I would have my bag and this little UNICEF box so people 
would put some pennies in, and I learned how much each of those dimes 
would mean for food for kids in other countries. We should be at the 
forefront of supporting brighter futures for children who are facing 
the hardships of poverty so the

[[Page S3227]]

next generation can build strong societies and become close partners 
with the United States.
  Think about people who study in our colleges and graduate schools 
from other countries. Think about what they offer us. Yes, they pay 
their way a lot of the time. That helps college. But do you know what 
else they do? Sometimes they stay. Sometimes they stay for a few years. 
Basically, they are getting advanced degrees. They are getting skills 
that we want them to get, and sometimes we want them to stay in our 
country. In my mind, we should be stapling a green card to their 
diplomas. That is why, when you look at Fortune 500 companies in our 
country and who has headed them up, a huge number of them are 
immigrants or are kids of immigrants who were educated in our country.
  That is such a big part of our economy and our advantage across the 
world. Why would we be cutting them off--or they go back to their home 
countries and say: You know, I kind of liked it there. They start a 
business. Then they do business with our country. That is how this has 
worked.
  American businesses need access to emerging markets. Many countries 
that have received U.S. assistance have become important American 
trading partners. The connection between foreign assistance and 
American prosperity is especially clear in agriculture. America has 
proudly fed the world for decades, and foreign aid has been a critical 
component of that effort. Food aid is a significant market for American 
farmers, purchasing over $4.25 billion in American commodities from 
2020 to 2024.
  Minnesota farmers and ag businesses sold a total of $70 million in ag 
products to USAID's Food for Peace Program in 2024 alone.
  Continuing this aid should not be a partisan issue. It never has 
been, or we never would have gotten it done for all these years. It has 
been completely bipartisan. Some people come at it, as I said, because 
of their faith and their belief in helping the world. Some people come 
at it in terms of economics and think this is how we help people, and 
then this opens the markets for us. Some people come at it from a 
security standpoint, which I mentioned with health but also applies in 
other ways. If you help people and you are their friends, it can lead 
to good things down the line.
  Cutting funding for this international aid, not to mention cutting 
ourselves off from the information we need, especially in rural areas 
that so often in news deserts rely on public radio and public TV for 
their information, is sending our democracy backward at a time when we 
are completely connected and should be connected to the rest of the 
world.
  These investments, compared to the rest of the Federal budget, aren't 
as big, but their influence in the immediate and in the long term is 
immense. They strengthen our country at home and strengthen American 
leadership around the world.
  This is a test of our values, yes, but it is also economically the 
right thing to do to keep a fragmented country that is ever-divided 
somewhat on the same plane, by their kids having a public TV program to 
watch and learn from, from their community being able to tune in and 
watch a local sports game and are able to get their news about what 
happened on their city council and talk about it the next day.
  So one person says: I don't know what happened. I read this on 
Facebook.
  Then the other person says: No, that is not true. I actually saw the 
local news in Austin, and I saw what it said on our local public TV 
network--they don't even, maybe, know what that is, but they know what 
it is--and this is what I found out.
  That is how people can come to some common agreement about what is 
happening in our world.
  And there is no better place to start than on a local level, which is 
why, when you talk to Republican or Democratic mayors or city council 
members, they will tell you: If we don't have that, how are we ever 
going to debate this levy proposal? How are we ever going to get people 
to understand why we have to make a decision about the school and 
whether we close it down or whether we expand it or whether we close 
another school down?
  How are they ever going to have that without a public access station?
  In this day and age, this idea that we are--what are we going to do? 
Just expect everyone to go out when they have three kids? Are they 
supposed to go out to every single meeting and watch it themselves? Or 
are they supposed to rely on that, maybe, they are going to get the 
right information on Twitter, but they are not sure if that person is 
telling the truth or that person is telling the truth? Or are we going 
to give them the first frontline of information, which is what C-SPAN 
does, by the way, which is why Senator Grassley and I are trying to 
make sure that we get C-SPAN on platforms like YouTube, owned by 
Google; by Hulu, owned by Disney, in the modern day.
  It is the same thing here. I want to make sure there are some sources 
where people can gather and look at this news and know they are getting 
something of quality, know they are getting something either that 
entertains them with music, without every single song having an ad in 
the middle of it, and that they are able to get the news they need to 
be good citizens of this great country. That is what is on the line 
with these rescissions.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, a lot of people are asking the question: 
What exactly were people voting for in the last Presidential election?
  Well, many things. We have many citizens who are voters in this 
country, but the recurring theme seems to be the cost of living for the 
average family, the ability of mothers and fathers to make ends meet 
and to see a realization of their dreams and aspirations. We were told, 
over and over again, that families across this country were being 
overwhelmed by the cost of living--gas, groceries, housing. So they 
gave a majority of the votes to President Trump, who promised he would 
make America great again.
  Since taking office, I don't believe that the President has come near 
to keeping his promise. Instead, he has hired many of his billionaire 
buddies and cut deals with the ultrawealthy that will harm the same 
Americans who voted for him.
  I am not going to get into his cryptocurrency scheme and how it has 
enriched him and his family. Let's set that aside for a minute and talk 
about issues that apply to every person.
  Hidden in more than 1,000 pages in the bill that passed the House of 
Representatives is a plan--a laundry list of things--that I don't 
believe Americans even considered voting for in the last November 
election. They are going to have a devastating impact on families and 
States, red and blue alike.
  The main takeaway from this ``One Big Ugly Bill'': Billionaires are 
going to win, and American families are going to lose.
  Do you think the voters in last November's election for President of 
the United States would actually vote to close down their local 
hospital? That is what is looming.
  You say: Oh, you Democrats and your scare tactics--that can't 
possibly be true.
  Well, let me tell you what happened.
  Three weeks ago, 20 hospital administrators from across the State of 
Illinois--from Chicago down to the southernmost part of our State--all 
took a special trip to Washington to warn me that the bill that was 
pending before the House of Representatives threatened the survival of 
hospitals across our State. These are hospitals which are not only 
critical for providing professional medical care, delivering babies, 
and saving people's lives who are in automobile accidents but also 
major parts of the local economy.
  You come to rural, smalltown Midwest America and ask about the impact 
to the local hospital, and they will tell you: We don't know that we 
can keep a business or attract a business if we didn't have it. We 
count on it every day to be there when we need it. And, secondly, it is 
a major employer--in

[[Page S3228]]

fact, in most towns, the biggest employer in Downstate.
  Then they warned me: Many of these hospitals are hanging on by a 
thread. The money that they receive from government insurance programs 
like Medicaid keeps the doors open and the lights on and the doctors in 
town.
  And now we have a proposal from the Republicans to cut that Medicaid 
benefit for 16 million Americans. This would be the largest cutback in 
health insurance protection in the history of the United States. That 
is what has been sent over by the House of Representatives and is 
presently under consideration by the Republican leadership here in the 
Senate.
  Nationwide, half of all rural hospitals already operate in the red, 
and more than 300 rural hospitals are at immediate risk of closure--26 
in Kansas, 22 in Alabama, and 9 in Missouri.
  How many closed hospitals will the Republicans accept as part of 
their plan?
  Let me tell you, I am from downstate Illinois--proud to represent the 
city of Chicago all these years but prouder still of being from 
downstate and trying to keep track of all the needs they have for this 
economy to prosper. I know rural hospitals are the backbone of many 
communities in downstate Illinois. Critical emergency medical care 
anchors the local economy.
  Now you dig deeply into this Republican budget bill that has come 
over from the House of Representatives, and it turns out they are not 
just eliminating health insurance coverage for 16 million Americans, 
they are also cutting Medicare.
  Medicare is a program primarily for elderly people in this country. 
It has been a miracle worker. Medicare was created in the 1960s, and it 
is no coincidence or surprise that the life expectancy of Americans 
went up as Medicare took root and became part of healthcare in America.
  Despite promising to leave Medicare alone, which everyone said, from 
Donald Trump on down, Republicans couldn't help themselves. They 
slashed Medicare benefits and reduced access to hospitals, nursing 
homes, and medications for seniors in all 50 States--Medicaid and 
Medicare.
  So why would Republicans in Congress take a wrecking ball to these 
two major parts of our healthcare system? To provide money from tax 
breaks to the wealthiest people in America.
  I will bet you that he is making it up. I will bet you it is another 
one of those political schemes of his.
  It is not being made up. It is true. They want to generate enough 
money to give tax breaks to wealthy people.
  Based on a new update from the Congressional Budget Office today, up 
to 16 million Americans are now estimated to lose their health 
insurance coverage under this Republican plan that passed the House and 
is now being considered by the Senate Republicans.
  I can just tell you this from a personal basis: There is no more 
helpless feeling in the world than to be a father with no health 
insurance and being told that your beautiful baby has a serious medical 
complication. I know. I have been there.
  Some Republicans are downplaying these catastrophic health cuts. On 
the Senate floor earlier today, a Republican Senator said people on 
Medicaid are lazy and play video games all day. At a recent townhall 
meeting, when a concerned constituent raised the Republicans' proposed 
Medicaid cuts and said that people would die, it became a controversy 
in response to the Senator's comment.
  It sounds like Republicans in Congress want to be the ones to decide 
who is worthy of healthcare in America. But Americans who depend on 
Medicaid are not strangers. They are your neighbors. They are people at 
your church, your school, and at your work. It probably is your family 
too.
  If you or a loved one gets sick, will congressional Republicans deem 
you deserving of seeing a doctor? Is that what this was all about? Is 
that what this election was all about? Did the American people vote for 
tax cuts for billionaires? I don't think so.
  A party like the Republicans, who claim they are the party of the 
working class--working-class billionaires--they refuse to put their 
money where their mouth is. Republicans in Congress may say they are 
just trying to lower your taxes, but most of the benefit is going to 
wealthy people who won't even notice it. Maybe their bookkeepers and 
accountants will be able to give them the good news that they just 
saved another $200- or $300,000 in taxes.
  Under the Republican plan, taxpayers in the wealthiest 0.1 percent 
would get a $300,000 tax cut every year--$300,000 for the richest of 
the richest in America. Why? At the expense of healthcare for 16 
million Americans? It makes no sense.
  The average full-time worker making minimum wage on average would 
receive a tax break as well. I have to be honest about it. It is $20 a 
month. So $300,000 for the richest of the rich and 20 bucks a month for 
the working stiff. How can that possibly be fair?
  Did the American people vote to slash jobs across the economy in the 
last November election? I don't think so. Since we passed the Inflation 
Reduction Act, 85 percent of investment in clean energy technology has 
landed in Republican districts.
  Now, I know the President of the United States calls global warming 
and environmental issues a hoax. He has been hanging with that story 
for a long time even though we know something is happening. Notice the 
extreme weather events across the United States and around the world? 
They are getting more frequent and more costly. Is it a coincidence or 
is something going on? I happen to believe something is going on.
  In just 2 years since passing the Inflation Reduction Act, businesses 
have announced 340 new clean technology projects. One estimate says 
that these projects will create 150,000 permanent jobs. I have seen it 
in my State. That includes more than 9,000 jobs in Texas, 4,800 in 
Ohio, 4,500 in Indiana, and 2,700 in my home State of Illinois. The 
Republicans' ``Big Ugly Bill'' puts these jobs at risk, taking a 
hatchet to tax policy that makes these projects possible.
  The promise of a Republican repeal has already scared the private 
sector into withdrawing $14 billion in investment and canceling 10,000 
clean energy manufacturing jobs. Why would the so-called party of the 
working class want to give their own constituents a pink slip? I don't 
get it.
  Now, some of my Republican colleagues have been brave enough to raise 
alarms about the Medicaid cuts, the rollback of clean energy credits, 
and the cost of the bill, but do you know what the cost of this bill is 
to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people? It is $3.8 trillion more 
on the deficit over the next decade.
  We already know the scammer in chief will try to bully Republicans 
into choosing billionaires over working families, using anything he can 
to persuade them or threaten them. My Republican colleagues must know 
that this plan does not make America great again; it makes our debt the 
greatest in the history of our Nation. Instead, it harms families in 
red and blue States looking for a fair shot.
  Their lip service to these terrible cuts is not enough. I urge a 
handful of my Republican colleagues--and that is all it takes--to show 
some courage, show some common sense, tell the folks in the House and 
tell the White House as well that this approach is not going to work.
  Taking health insurance away from 16 million Americans--more than has 
ever happened in the history of this country--is unfair, fundamentally 
unfair, and we all know it. We know intuitively that is just not fair. 
Taking Medicaid away from reimbursing hospitals and doctors of critical 
care in small towns and rural areas is a mistake we will pay for for 
generations to come.
  I urge Republicans to listen to their constituents because I know 
that Americans who voted for Trump in November did not vote for what I 
have just described today on the floor of the Senate.
  We need four Republicans--four--to stand up and say: This doesn't 
make sense--too much debt, too much pain for families, and too much of 
a gamble for rural areas in smalltown America.
  We have to stand up and make a much better effort, and we should do 
it on a bipartisan basis as quickly as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.