[Pages S3651-S3663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative
session.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I also ask indulgence for one more minute.
This is really easy. Yesterday was my 38th wedding anniversary. I
have convinced Susan Tillis to stay married to me for 38 years. I wish
I was going to be with her and a couple of dozen family members down at
the beach, but I am doing my work here, and I am going to stay until it
is done.
I also want to wish my grandson--they are celebrating his second
birthday today down there at that same beach house--happy birthday.
God bless my family. I love you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

H.R. 1

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am sorry to see my colleague Senator
Tillis leave before I have a chance to tell him how much I am going to
miss him.
We have worked together on a number of things, including the Senate
NATO Observer Group. He has been a great partner, an excellent Senator,
and I am sorry to hear that he is not going to be staying in this body.
But, Mr. President, I am really here on this floor to oppose the
reconciliation bill that we are considering today. It would be the
largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single bill
in our history.
This legislation would take away healthcare for millions of
Americans; it would cut food aid for millions more; it would raise
household energy and healthcare bills; and it would add trillions to
the debt, all to give the top, not just 1 percent but the top 0.1
percent of people who make more than $2.5 million a year an extra
$250,000 a year.
At a moment when Americans are struggling with the high cost of
living, this bill will take money out of the pockets of working people,
the average household making less than $50,000. That is 30 percent of
Americans. So 30 percent of Americans will lose about $700 a year from
this bill.
Here are some of the ways that it hurts middle-class Americans, the
people whom I am very proud to represent in New Hampshire: Somehow, the
Senate took the bad bill--or what I thought was a bad bill--from the
House, and they have made it much, much worse.
This bill is the largest cut to healthcare in American history. In
total, the bill proposes more than $1 trillion--$1 trillion--in cuts to
Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act--$930 billion of that is Medicaid
alone. Because of these cuts, more than 300 rural

[[Page S3652]]

hospitals could close, more than 500 nursing homes could close. These
are core programs and services that benefit seniors, children,
veterans, people living with disabilities, and working families.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 17 million Americans,
including 43,000 Granite Staters, would lose their health insurance.
Over the past several weeks, the past couple of months, I have toured
New Hampshire. I have heard from countless constituents who are deeply
anxious about what this bill means for them and for their families.
Again and again, they have said plainly, without Medicaid, without
the Affordable Care Act, they would not be here today.
I heard from Danielle in Dalton, northern New Hampshire. Danielle is
a proud mother of three sons, two of whom have autism. Danielle's sons
rely on Medicaid for their health coverage and for their home care.
Danielle is not only their full-time caregiver; she receives a stipend
from Medicaid to provide for their care. And thanks to Medicaid, both
of her sons are able to work part-time, they are able to live at home
with their mom, and they are able to remain active in the community.
This bill would put all of that at risk. Danielle says her sons could
have difficulty qualifying for Medicaid under these new rules, and
losing Medicaid would be catastrophic for her family because it would
likely force her sons out of work, out of her home, and into a group
home or institution. So it is going to cost a lot more if that happens.
Her boys are now contributing members of society, and this bill
threatens not only their livelihood and their independence and their
future, it threatens their dignity.
I heard from Shawn in Claremont. Shawn shared with me his story of
addiction to alcohol, cocaine, and heroin and his long road to
recovery. After several near-death experiences, he found stability in a
sober living home and enrolled in Medicaid. With access to treatment,
he was able to hold a job and get his life back on track.
He eventually opened his own sober living home, Hope 2 Freedom, where
he now helps others suffering from addiction so that they can enroll in
Medicaid and begin their own journey to sobriety.
I heard from Karla in Exeter. Karla has twin 3-year-old boys, one of
whom had serious medical complications at birth. Now, she always was
able to have health insurance with her job, but as her family's medical
bills piled up, she enrolled her son in Medicaid to ensure that he got
the care that her family could not afford and her employer-sponsored
health insurance wouldn't pay for. He still needs extensive care to
this day, and losing her coverage would put her family into devastating
medical debt.
Probably the story I heard that touched me as much as any was from a
man in Berlin, in northern New Hampshire. He had had a number of
substance misuse issues, mental health challenges.
He said: Without Medicaid, without the center--we were at a center
where Medicaid helped pay to support people who needed help. He said:
Without this, I would just give up; I would commit suicide because
there would be nothing for me.
These are just a handful of the countless stories I have heard these
past few months. They are about real people.
This bill isn't just words on a page; it is a direct attack on not
only their health and their economic security but their very dignity,
their ability to have fulfilling lives and to contribute back to their
communities and to society. We owe them better than this.
This bill would also make catastrophic cuts to food assistance that
is provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also
known as SNAP. During this time of high food prices, of increasing food
insecurity, it is particularly critical for families to be able to rely
on SNAP to help them keep food on the table.
One of the ways this bill cuts the program is by requiring States to
pay higher costs. Now, as the former Governor of New Hampshire, I can
tell you how much of a burden this is on our State's budget. And there
are all kinds of provisions in this bill that are nothing but massive
cost shifts to States, and this is one area.
The bill puts food assistance at risk for families with teenage
children as well as older adults, veterans, and individuals
experiencing homelessness. In New Hampshire, an estimated 1,000 older
adults could lose SNAP access. These cuts will mean increased hunger
across the country.
You know, we talk a lot about kitchen table issues here. Passing this
bill is an explicit vote to take food off of families' kitchen tables.
I heard from Rachel. She is a care coordinator at a behavioral health
center in Claremont, which is in the western part of New Hampshire. She
told me:

SNAP is not just a program--it is a lifeline. For the
parents I work with, it means being able to send their
children to school with full stomachs and functioning minds.
For caregivers struggling to make ends meet, it provides some
peace of mind knowing there will be something on the table
each night. And for children--many of whom are navigating
mental health challenges--SNAP supports stability, dignity
and health during formative years. Without SNAP, the strain
on these already vulnerable families would increase
exponentially.

She goes on to say:

SNAP is not a handout--it is a step forward for families
working hard to survive and succeed against overwhelming
odds.

On the energy front, for families concerned about energy costs, this
bill only offers more pain. In addition to cutting off tremendously
successful incentives for electricity that are adding reliable,
affordable, and clean energy to the grid at a record pace, this bill
cuts off longstanding tax credits for consumers--for average, everyday
Americans--to make energy-saving improvements to their homes or to add
rooftop solar to take control of their own energy bills.
After countless promises to lower people's energy bills, this
legislation would do just the opposite. Last year, 2.3 million families
took advantage of the home energy efficiency tax credit and cut an
average $130 off of their yearly energy bills. Now, this may not sound
like a lot to the Mar-a-Lago crowd, but it makes a big difference for
families in New Hampshire who worry about how they are going to heat
their homes. American households are expected to pay an extra $170
billion in energy bills over the next 10 years, thanks to the misplaced
priorities in this bill.
Add to that 1.5 million good jobs that are likely to go away, and it
makes you wonder if supporters of this bill have actually read it or if
they actually care about American energy dominance.
And on taxes, this bill spends more than $4 trillion on tax cuts,
including nearly $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the biggest
corporations. But for taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year, they
would see an average tax increase.
Let me say that again because I didn't say that quite right with the
right emphasis: For taxpayers earning less than $30,000 a year, they
would see an average tax increase in 2029. And these are the same
families who are going to be harmed most by extreme cuts to Medicaid
and SNAP. Families making under $50,000 are likely to be worse off, and
some could lose more than $1,500 a year under this bill.
So if you add to that the effects of Trump's tariffs, which raise the
cost of living for a typical family by $2,000 a year, this makes it
even worse for families. So the bottom 80 percent of households, those
making less than $175,000, will be worse off, on average, under this
bill.

Now, I have talked about how this bill makes families pay more for
healthcare, for energy, and food in order to give more money to
billionaires, but there are a few other things that people should know.
First, because of the trillions of dollars this bill would add to the
debt, interest rates are likely to go up. That adds more than $1,000 a
year for a typical mortgage.
This bill makes it harder for students to afford the cost of college,
and it removes debt protections for students who have been defrauded by
their schools.
And this bill actually tries to prohibit States from regulating AI
for the next 10 years, making it that much harder to keep our kids safe
online and to protect jobs from being lost to the use of this
technology.
You know, I was first elected to the New Hampshire State Senate more

[[Page S3653]]

than 30 years ago. This bill that we are considering today would do
more harm to more people than any other law I have seen in my entire
time in public office.
This bill makes having a family more expensive by raising the cost of
energy, healthcare, and education. This bill takes food and healthcare
away from seniors and families, and it does all of that--it does all of
that--to give trillions of dollars more to corporations and to the
wealthiest. And it explodes our deficit in the process. That is not
what the people of New Hampshire are asking for, and it is not what
Americans deserve.
So, to my colleagues in the Senate, I say this: At a moment when
Americans are feeling squeezed by the cost of living, we should be
doing something about that.
Instead of gutting healthcare to pay for tax cuts, we should be
expanding access to affordable, quality care.
Instead of turning our backs on working parents, we should be making
housing more affordable. And we should ensure that every child has
access to high quality, affordable early education.
Instead of cutting nutrition programs, let's make sure that no child
in America goes hungry.
Instead of driving up food and energy prices, let's invest in the
programs that help American families succeed.
President Trump calls this the Big Beautiful Bill, but it is a big
betrayal of the American people. There is nothing beautiful about
taking away healthcare and food from working families to give more
money to billionaires.
So I intend to vote against this legislation, and I urge all of my
colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I don't believe you can serve in the U.S.
Senate without being, at least, an amateur student of history. You are
overwhelmed in this Chamber, which is where the Senate has met since
1859, to reflect on all of the things that have occurred in the past,
and you remember your own experience there as well. I certainly do.
This is my 29th year of service in the Senate, and I think back this
evening to some of the things which I have witnessed and that still
stick with me.
I can still see that door open and Ted Kennedy walk through it,
summoned from his deathbed in Massachusetts to cast the deciding vote
on the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. He wouldn't miss it, even if it
meant he was going to die in the process.
I think of that door over there, when President Trump, in his first
term, tried to, basically, eliminate the Affordable Care Act, and it
was saved at the last minute, at 2 in the morning, when John McCain
came through those doors, stood in the well right by that table through
the Republican side, and cast his vote no. He couldn't raise his arm,
it had been damaged so badly when he served as a prisoner of war during
Vietnam, but you knew how decisive his gesture was. And he saved
healthcare for millions of Americans.
There were other moments as well that I can reflect on, but the point
I would like to get to is this: There was a speech a few minutes ago on
the floor of the U.S. Senate which every Senator should have heard,
particularly every Republican Senator.
The Senator from North Carolina gave a speech--Senator Tillis--and
explained why he decided to vote against this Republican budget plan,
this reconciliation bill. He explained it in a thoughtful and
comprehensive and convincing way. But before he made his decision, he
turned to Republicans in the State and Democrats and a neutral third
party to analyze the bill. He concluded, after that careful study, that
this measure, the changes in Medicaid and Medicare and other health
programs, would be a disaster for the State of North Carolina.
He had made it clear before tonight that he was going to vote against
this bill, and he made it clear this morning that he is preparing to
retire from the Senate.
I felt his statement was compelling, and I am sorry that there
weren't other Members on the Republican side, at least one beyond the
Presiding Officer, present to hear it.
It is seldom that you hear a speech on the floor of the Senate that
you know is so personal and so heartfelt and so meaningful as the
statement made by Senator Tillis earlier. He made a decision, which
will be widely reported, I am sure, and showed a level of political
courage which is seldom seen in this Chamber.
He basically said in a positive way that the President was wrong in
believing that this wouldn't hurt ordinary people. This Republican
measure, which is before us tonight and tomorrow is going to hurt a lot
of people.
We estimate that 16 million American families will lose their health
insurance as a result of this measure that is on the floor today.
I have said it before, but I want to repeat it. If you have ever been
the father of a new baby with a serious medical problem and you have no
health insurance, you will never forget that moment as long as you
live. I know. I have been there.
I went to the charity ward at Children's Hospital as a student of
Georgetown Law School with my wife and baby. We waited in line to see
which doctor would walk through the door and see my baby and save her
life. You feel that you have let everyone down in the world at that
point when you don't have health insurance when you need it so badly.
It means so much to you.
This bill is designed to take health insurance away from 11 million
families in America. Eleven million families in America in a period of
time will not have peace of mind that they have access to the best care
because they will have lost their health insurance.
What is it about Donald Trump taking away coverage of healthcare? Why
has this become the trademark of the Donald Trump Republican Party? He
did it in his first term. He tried to, but John McCain stopped him, and
now he is trying to do it again.
The question is whether Senator Tillis and his Republican colleagues
can muster enough courage to step up and find four Republican Senators
who will say: No. No. I am not going there. I don't want it on my
conscious or my record that I took health insurance away from so many
American people.
Now, you may argue: Durbin you are a Democrat--and I am--and your
arguments have to be tempered because you are so partisan, so
political. Surely it isn't as bad as you just said it was.
Well, let me read something to you. It is from a group called the
American Cancer Society. I am sure you have heard of it. This is their
Cancer Action Network, and it is a letter to the Senate from Lisa
Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action
Network. Here is what she says about the measure that is pending before
us now that we are being asked to vote on. It is from the American
Cancer Society Cancer Action Network:

History will be made with this vote. Congress has one last
chance to stop this unprecedented attack on access to
healthcare for millions of Americans, including cancer
patients and survivors. Congress can say `no' to terminating
health coverage for nearly 11 million people who will have no
other affordable option available to them if this bill
passes.
Currently, 1 in 10 people with a history of cancer have
Medicaid coverage, including 1 in 3 kids who are newly
diagnosed with cancer. We know having quality health coverage
is one of the most significant factors in whether someone
survives a cancer diagnosis. Voting for this bill means
voting to rip the chance of survival away from real people.

She goes on to say:

Simply put, this bill will mean more Americans are living
sicker and dying sooner.

Then she said:

Lives are on the line.

So if you are skeptical about anything that I say because of my
partisan background, I understand. But for goodness' sake, when the
American Cancer Society--they have such a definitive statement made
that this measure we are being asked to vote on is going to harm
innocent people--men, women, and children. That is a fact.
I might add another short message we received from the Children's
Hospital Association. Matthew Cook is their president and CEO, and here
is what he says about this bill that is pending:

The new version of the budget reconciliation bill is a
crisis for children's health care, hospitals, and providers
nationwide, and we ask Congress to oppose it as an act of
support for America's children. The bill goes

[[Page S3654]]

much too far. . . . The bill amounts to fewer doctors and
nurses to see your child, longer wait times, and sicker
children. We know that the impacts of poor pediatric health
care reverberate for a lifetime.

That is from the Children's Hospital Association.
Neither of these organizations is a partisan organization, and they
have confirmed what Senator Tillis said earlier on behalf of the State
of North Carolina and what those of us on this side of the aisle have
been saying all along.
Why would we risk the lives and well-being of so many children, so
many American families? What is it about the trillion dollars which we
will take out of the healthcare system in America that is so pressing,
so demanding that we are willing to make these big risks? I will tell
you what it is. It is the extension of tax breaks--tax breaks for the
wealthiest people.
Oh, Durbin, you Democrats always talk about billionaires and
millionaires. It can't be true.
Senator Angus King is here. He told me that he did an analysis of the
actual tax breaks. If I remember correctly, if you do a cut-off of
income at $400,000 a year and say anyone over that figure is not going
to receive any tax break, you would reduce the cost of this tax program
by 60 percent or more--60 percent or more.
So when we talk about tax breaks for the wealthiest people in
America, that is exactly what this is about. I want to give tax breaks,
if we can, to working families that struggle paycheck to paycheck. For
goodness' sake, a $346,000 tax cut for Elon Musk, the richest man on
Earth? What are we thinking?
I just want to make quick reference to two States that have an
experience coming with this bill, which will be dramatic. One is
Kansas. In Kansas, 360,000 individuals rely on Medicaid coverage.
Fifty-six percent of them are children. But with this bill, 89,000
people in Kansas are going to lose their health insurance.
In Kansas, Medicaid covers one-third of births and 58 percent of
nursing home residents. What happens when Medicaid does not pay enough
money to the nursing home to keep your mother in good care or your
father or someone in your family? What do you do next? Well, you
exhaust the savings that are available to your family. If that isn't
enough, what is next? I don't know.
When I grew up, as a kid, there was a spare bedroom in my
grandparents' home for brothers and sisters who had no place else to
go. I suppose that is going to happen to some families.

Already, 28 rural hospitals in Kansas are at immediate risk of
cloture. To think that this measure will have no impact on those
families and those communities is just plain wrong.
In the adjoining State of Missouri--I grew up across the river, the
Mississippi River; I grew up in Illinois; I grew up across the river
from St. Louis, MO--1.2 million individuals rely on Medicaid coverage.
Fifty percent are children. With this bill, 250,000 people in Missouri
are projected to lose their health insurance. Medicaid covers 40
percent of births in Missouri and 65 percent of nursing home residents.
Already, 10 rural hospitals in Missouri are at immediate risk of
closure. Mr. President, you know as well as I do what happens in
smalltown America, rural America, when they close the hospital. It is
devastating--not just because you don't have access to quality
healthcare but because you just lost a major economic engine for that
community. Try to attract a new business to that town after the
hospital closes. Watch what you run into. It is that devastating.
That is the reality of this approach. And why are we doing it? What
is the national energy that calls on us to make this change? Tax breaks
for the wealthiest people in the America. That is what is motivating
the Republicans now.
I want to close and just say thank you to Senator Tillis. He has
shown extraordinary courage. The question is whether others will join
him, whether four Republican Senators will step up and say: Enough. I
have heard enough. I have seen enough. I believe this is wrong.
There are ways we can help people who need a tax break rather than
the wealthiest people that won't damage some of these families. Eleven
million, 16 million--whatever the number turns out to be--will lose
health insurance.
I hope that we come to our senses and do it soon. I hope what Senator
Tillis said on the floor will inspire Members of his own caucus to
listen carefully, to know that he speaks the truth and has taken great
political risk to say it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my midwestern
colleagues today to draw attention to what will happen in our States if
this bill were to come to pass. So I rise today on behalf of the 17
million Americans who are poised to have their healthcare terminated
because of the Republicans' disastrous budget bill.
While I am laser-focused on the nearly 260,000 Wisconsinites whose
healthcare will be placed in jeopardy by this measure, I realize that
so many Americans who reside in States that are represented by
Republicans don't have a voice in this fight right now on this Senate
floor.
You know, I have traveled my State extensively, listening to people
talk about how this bill would impact them and their families, and I
have shared those stories, I have uplifted those stories, sometimes
right here on the Senate floor and sometimes in other ways.
I know that my Republican colleagues are getting the same influx of
phone calls and letters that I am getting from parents of children with
disabilities, from the elderly and folks who are working hard but just
can't keep up. These are constituents who are downright scared that
they will have the rug pulled out from under them.
I know my Republican colleagues are hearing from their rural
hospitals and their pediatricians who are clear about what this bill
will mean for their ability to keep their doors open and to care for
their patients.
According to reports, my colleague from Kentucky even admitted as
much behind closed doors last week, saying that ``I know a lot of us
are hearing from people back home about Medicaid.'' But rather than
committing to join us in this fight, he said ``They'll get over it''
and urged his colleagues to forge ahead with this bill.
Well, if my Republican colleagues won't fight for these Americans, I
think it is well past time that some of us do. That is why I am proud
to be standing with my midwestern Democratic colleagues to do and say
something about it.
I am here to stand up for the over half a million midwestern
Americans in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas whose
healthcare is on the chopping block if Republicans jam through this
terrible budget bill.
In just those 6 States alone, over 340,000 Americans will lose their
Affordable Care Act coverage, and over 225,000 Americans will be kicked
off Medicaid if the Republicans get their bill and their way. In Iowa,
over 100,000 Americans' care could be on the chopping block, including
over 58,000 Americans whose families rely on Medicaid.
When we talk about hundreds of thousands of people losing healthcare
coverage, it can sometimes get lost that this actually means people,
not numbers. The numbers we are talking about are people. They have
faces, they have stories, they have families, and they matter.
Take Patrick Kearns, a registered nurse in Iowa City at the VA
Medical Center and father of two adult children with disabilities. He
told the Des Moines Register:

My children are not scamming the system. The idea that
they're somehow gaming the system at the detriment to the
rest of society, especially when people like Elon Musk are
using words like `parasite' to describe my children--anger
doesn't quite encompass how I feel.

He continued:

I just find it shocking that you would go after truly the
most vulnerable people, as if they are somehow conducting
fraud. These folks are barely surviving.

In Kansas, where nearly 90,000 Americans' health coverage is at risk,
including 18,000 Kansans on Medicaid, Kathy and Jacob shared the story
of their adopted sister Mireya, who suffered a traumatic brain injury
at just 4 weeks old--I am sorry--7 weeks old. Because of Medicaid, the
family could afford at-home nursing services before their sister passed
away in 2024.

[[Page S3655]]

Jacob told the Kansas Reflector:

This is not right or left. This is truly a human right.
Yes, we want to get rid of fraud. People using the support,
that's not fraud. That's called helping people live their
best life in the most respectful and dignified way possible.

In Missouri, 250,000 Americans' care is on the chopping block,
including over 100,000 with Medicaid.
In the suburb of St. Louis, Sandra told the Kaiser Family Foundation
Health News that she worries about her 20-year-old daughter Sarah and
the 24-hour service she needs, including in-home nursing.
Sandra said:

I really and truly don't know what I would do if we lost
the Medicaid home care. I have no plan whatsoever. It is not
sustainable for anyone to do infinite, 24-hour care without
dire physical health, mental health, and financial
consequences, especially as we parents get into our elder
years.''

In Nebraska, 74,000 people could lose coverage, including 26,000
Americans on Medicaid. Dr. Ann Anderson Berry, who works at Children's
Hospital in Omaha, NE, told Nebraska Public Media that these cuts would
greatly harm those in Nebraska's rural communities.
According to Dr. Anderson Berry, ``this is not just a health care
issue; it's a workforce issue, an education issue, an economic issue.
Communities without access to safe childbirth cannot attract or retain
young families. They struggle to grow, and they suffer generational
consequences. Nebraska simply deserves better. Our rural families
deserve better. Cutting Medicaid may save money on the spreadsheet, but
it will cost lives in real communities and put the expensive burden of
care back on our communities.''
In South Dakota, 31,000 Americans' insurance is at risk under this
bill, including 12,000 Americans on Medicaid. Retired family physician
Tom Dean, from Wessington Springs, shared his concerns about what the
cuts to Medicaid will mean for nursing homes and the health of moms and
babies.
He told the South Dakota Searchlight:

I'm really frightened about the impact it will have on
nursing homes. . . . Medicaid is a major payer for prenatal,
delivery, and postpartum care. . . . And that's a major
concern, especially in rural areas.

I know that my Republican colleagues are hearing these stories from
their constituents, and we need to make sure that they can't ignore
them. These stories and the people behind them make all the difference
in this fight to protect Medicaid. I am proud to give them a voice in
the Senate, as my Republican colleagues continue their crusade to rip
away healthcare from 17 million Americans.
The American people don't like this bill, and that includes Americans
who live in red, blue, and purple States. We are going to keep ringing
the alarm bells on behalf of Americans in every corner, in every part
of this Nation and protect the critical coverage working families need
and deserve. Lives depend upon it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues
from Illinois and from Wisconsin. And you just heard from Senator
Baldwin about the effects of this budget bill on the Midwest.
I guess I would start by asking the same questions as our colleague
Senator Tillis, who just announced he wasn't going to seek reelection,
after the President threatened him with a primary, and after he took a
vote and had the audacity to ask the questions that had to be asked
about this bill.
And you heard him today. He talked about how he had talked to the
hospital association in his State, how he had talked to the Governor's
Office, how he had gotten the actual data on the effects of Medicaid in
North Carolina. And then he asked the question: How hard is it to see
the impact of these proposals? And he asked: What is wrong with putting
a little daylight on what is going on here?
So that is what I am going to do in my few minutes here--put a little
Midwestern daylight on what is going on here--and that is that, under
this bill, 17 million people would be kicked off their healthcare
because of the Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act changes.
That was 16 million people until we got the updated numbers from the
Congressional Budget Office. That is a nonpartisan group.
It also drives $4 trillion in debt. It used to be $3.4. Now it is up
to $4 trillion. And what will that mean? That will mean big time in the
Midwest, where I have so many of my own constituents wanting to buy
their first house. It is going to mean major increased interest rates.
It is going to mean difficulty in buying all kinds of things for which
you would take out loans or for small businesses--all for giving a
bunch of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, $400,000 for
multimillionaires.
Our colleagues are going to raise costs and take healthcare and food
away from millions of Americans.
So my colleagues have talked about Senator Baldwin and Senator
Durbin, and talked about the effects that this bill has in the Midwest
when it comes to healthcare and the closing of the rural hospitals. The
Midwest has a huge number of these rural hospitals. It is about half of
them that would be forecast to close.
She talked about the Medicaid cuts. So I am going to talk about a
different piece of this, and this is the impact of cuts to food
assistance.
There is no avoiding the facts. Here they are. About a month ago, the
House passed a budget bill, as you know, that cut nutrition assistance
by nearly $300 million. It put the country on track to eliminate SNAP
for 4 million Americans and reduce benefits for millions more. I was
hopeful that we would go in another direction. And while there were
some changes made by the Republicans on the Agriculture Committee that
I appreciated, it still amounts to over $185 billion in cuts from the
SNAP program.
And let me remind you that the vast majority of people on SNAP are
older Americans, people with kids, veterans, and people with
disabilities.
We were just out on the Senate steps with a number of those people
and the groups that they represent and faith leaders, talking about
this very subject.
Why them? Why give tax cuts to the wealthy on their backs?
We know that the impact of the ``Big Beautiful Betrayal of a Bill''
will be even more stark in the Midwest.
In the Midwest, here are some examples. Americans use SNAP benefits--
nearly 155,000 people in Nebraska. And let's face it. That is not the
biggest population State, but 155,000 Nebraskans use SNAP; about
190,000 people in Kansas; 260,000 people in Iowa; 660,000 people in
Missouri; 700,000 people in the State of Wisconsin. Senator Baldwin
just talked about the impact of healthcare there--but 700,000 people of
my neighbors in Wisconsin. Nearly 1.5 million people in Michigan use
SNAP. And in Minnesota, it is 450,000.
So, yes, those people will be affected greatly by this faux shift to
the States. And, unfortunately, while we tried to fight part of this--
the State shift--we were not able to get that changed, in the last few
days.
This means certain States. I am just going to give you some examples.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are supposed to shift over to States in
the Midwest. When 41 of the 50 States in our country have balanced
budget amendments, what are they supposed to do? Cut infrastructure?
Cut law enforcement?
The majority of these cuts--and this is why this is such funny math--
are shifts to the States, and it is why Governors, especially in the
Midwest, like Governor Kelly in the State of Kansas, who has been
speaking out big time on this, why they are so concerned about the
shift.
In addition--and this is not something everyone thinks about when
they think about SNAP, but we think about it big time in the Midwest--
it is farmers and grocers. Over a third of America's farmland is
located in the Midwest. That includes more than 722,000 farm
operations, which is more than one-third of farms nationwide.
So why would farmers care about this? Well, they will lose revenue
because Americans won't be able to buy their products. And that loss--
that is the SNAP program. Right? It buys food from America, just like
international organizations were buying food from America with USAID.
That has been cut. Or the Trump tariffs which dry up

[[Page S3656]]

markets in places all over the world because of retaliatory tariffs,
that is hitting our farmers. Input costs, inflation, you name it. And
now, this on top of it.
In addition, this is going to be a big hit to our grocers. In many
rural counties throughout the Midwest, their independent grocery store
is the lone grocer in the county. So in 76 counties nationwide, they
don't even have a single grocery store, and half of those are in the
Midwest.
I recently visited an employee-owned grocery store in rural Long
Prairie, MN--population: 3,600. Businesses like that operate on tight
margins, and they usually serve not just that county, as you can see
from the numbers I just provided you, but the surrounding counties, or
they may be the only ones in town. To businesses like that, the cuts to
SNAP are pretty significant because that is sometimes the margin on
which they are able to stay alive as a business.
This would make it harder and harder and more expensive for those
grocery stores. It could put them out of business. That is for sure.
That is what the grocery stores believe. But it also hurts the
individual people in their areas, because in the rural areas, you have
an overwhelming number of seniors, you have got an overwhelming number
of veterans, and you have just an overwhelming number of the people who
are using these kinds of grocery store.
So SNAP supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of
dollars in wages of these independent grocers, farm and other
industries, including more than 1,700 jobs in Nebraska, more than 1,900
jobs in Kansas, more than 2,600 jobs in Iowa, more than 7,000 jobs in
Missouri, more than 6,000 jobs in Wisconsin, more than 13,000 jobs in
Michigan, more than 4,000 jobs in Minnesota.
We know that from farmers and truckers to local grocers, for every
dollar invested in SNAP about $1.50 of economic activity is generated
nationwide.
For many Midwesterners, this bill would make the difference between
having a grocery store in their region or not.
I mentioned the shift of billions of dollars of costs to States that
will blow holes through the State budget. They won't be able to support
it, and, sadly, our Republican colleagues know this, because 44
States--44 States--have this balanced budget rule, and they are going
to be forced to choose between paying the cost for food and paying for
critical services. That is why 23 Democratic Governors, all of them,
just laid out in a letter to Congress that these cuts don't just
increase State costs; they make it nearly impossible for States to
effectively plan for these long-term budget impacts.
Those are Governors from Kentucky, with Governor Beshear, to Arizona,
with Governor Hobbs. Across the entire Nation, we heard from these
Governors, not to mention the Governors such as Governor Pritzker in
Illinois and Governor Walz in Minnesota and Governor Kelly in Kansas
and Governor Whitmer in Michigan.
Based on 2023 figures--ready for this?--the House and Senate version
of this bill would shift--and it varies because the bills are
different. But this is how much money we are talking about: between $16
million and $49 million onto the State of Nebraska, between $61 million
and $101 million in costs onto Kansas. Imagine the budget. Suddenly,
oh, you have got to do an extra $60 million. Too bad, you have a
balanced budget amendment.
Up to $26 million in costs onto Iowa, between $225 million and $376
million onto the State budget in Missouri, up to $68 million in costs
onto Wisconsin, where Governor Evers was also a signatory of this
letter.
Between 456 and 761 million in costs onto Michigan and between 43
million and 128 million in costs onto Minnesota.
And those numbers are on top--on top--of an increased administrative
cost shift to States. It used to be 50-50; now it is 75-25.
Hello, States. You with strapped budgets, we are now making you pay
75 percent of administrative costs, which would make it even harder for
States to invest in the staff training and upgraded financial systems
that would make the program more sound and reduce payment errors.
It is not just the State budgets that will be affected. In many
States, including Minnesota and Wisconsin, it is counties rather than
the States that run the SNAP program.
So I had a visit from some of the rural counties. And they--talk
about living off a margin, a thin margin, trying to help their
taxpayers trying to get this done, in States like Minnesota and
Wisconsin that believe in strong local government--big surprise--our
States and a number of other States with bigger rural areas have
decided: We would rather have the counties do this.
So now these cost shifts will go directly to these county
governments. And you would not believe the numbers of what they would
have to do to increase their taxes in these rural counties. They said:
We can't do that.
So if that happens, they will have to raise their local property
taxes or cut county services.
In the past, we have said that if you are raising kids or taking care
of an older relative, we are going to help you feed your family, even
if you don't have a job. This reconciliation bill would change that. It
would withhold food assistance from families raising kids over the age
of 13 and adults 55 and up if they don't meet the new requirements.
The Senate bill also eliminates an existing exemption for veterans,
homeless people, and former foster youth, an exemption my Republican
colleagues supported in the Fiscal Responsibility Act just 2 years ago.
So this is a shift among the party. The Republican party actually
said this was a good idea to have exemptions for vets and homeless
people and former foster youth. Not anymore. These are people who are
already struggling, veterans who have sacrificed to serve our country.
I believe that when our veterans signed up to serve, there was no
waiting line. And when they are in this country and they need help with
food or they need a job or they need a home, there shouldn't be a
waiting line in the United States of America.
So everyone that I have talked to about this, just as Senator Tillis
was saying about Medicaid in North Carolina--and I spent time on this.
I visit all 87 counties in my State every year. I am up to 49. So I
have been able to talk to people who aren't political, who are
Republicans, talk to people I just run into in rural grocery stores in
the vegetable line. I mean, I have talked to a ton of people. And what
they have said to the store managers, to the food shelf volunteers, to
those that take SNAP: This isn't a good idea.
That is what the public opinion polls say: FOX News poll, 60 percent
of people say this bill is a bad idea; 2 to 1 say it is going to help
wealthy people and not them.
Well, they are right about that. This is a betrayal of the middle
class, and it only takes four of our colleagues--and four in the House,
by the way--to stand up and say: We need to rewrite this thing. Let's
start over.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the devastating and dangerous tax-and-spending bill that
Senate Republicans are trying to jam through this weekend on a party
line vote, a bill that will gut essential programs like Medicaid and
SNAP just to pay for even more tax breaks for billionaires.
So let's be clear about what is happening here. This ``Big Beautiful
Betrayal,'' it isn't about fiscal discipline. It is fiscally reckless.
It isn't about responsibility or doing what is best for average
Americans. It is about misguided priorities. It is about giving more to
the ultrawealthy on the backs of hard-working families.
This bill will take away healthcare and food assistance from people
and families who need it most just so DC Republicans can pay more for
tax cuts for those who need them the least. DC Republicans want to have
more tax cuts for those who need them the least.
Once again, Republicans in Congress are putting the interests of the
ultrawealthy above the needs of hard-working families, children with
disabilities, seniors, and Americans who rely on Medicaid each and
every day.
Earlier this year, I held a roundtable in Las Vegas with Nevada
families who

[[Page S3657]]

rely on Medicaid. For them, Medicaid is not just a talking point. They
are not simply pay-fors in a budget bill. Medicaid is a lifeline. It
literally keeps their children alive.
I talked to people like Jessica, whose daughter Kay--well, she is 4
years old. She was born with Down syndrome and was recently diagnosed
with type 1 diabetes. Jessica relies on Medicaid to help cover the cost
of weekly physical, speech, and occupational therapies for Kay, all of
which are responsible--well, they are helping her learn to walk, to use
utensils, to write her own name.
Imagine when her mother sees her write her own name. It is a proud
moment.
Kay also has a cardiologist, an endocrinologist to manage conditions
related to her Down syndrome. Medicaid covers these doctors. It covers
her insulin. It covers the insulin pump that allows Jessica to manage
her daughter's diabetes around the clock, all because Kay can't
communicate when her blood sugar is dangerously low or high.
And Jessica said something at that roundtable I will never forget.
She told me:

I can't imagine losing Medicaid . . . obviously I'm going
to have [to try] to give up something, because I'm not gonna
let her go without insulin and the lifesaving care she needs.
And I can't [even] imagine having to think about what I'd
have to cut or what I'd have to do--

What I would have to do--

in order to pay for the lifesaving care that she needs and
deserves.

Kristy, another Nevada mom, was also at that roundtable. Her daughter
Sadie is 13. She has been bravely battling an aggressive form of
leukemia for the past 2 years. Since her diagnosis, Sadie has spent
more than a year and a half in and out of the hospital undergoing
treatment for her cancer--all covered, thankfully, by Medicaid.

Sadie's father--well, he passed away during the COVID pandemic,
sadly, and Kristy became Sadie's sole caregiver and sole provider.
Medicaid is critical, and, simply put, it is lifesaving. So why are
Republicans looking to cut it? So billionaires can get another tax
break? So that Republican lawmakers can hand out trillions of dollars
in tax giveaways to the wealthiest 1 percent while thousands of people
lose access to lifesaving care?
The cuts proposed to Medicaid--well, they are going to affect
veterans and Nevadans with cancer who can't work and who will be kicked
off their health insurance, the insurance that they need to stay alive.
It will kick the family caregiver, who takes care of both her aging
parents, maybe off her own coverage.
The majority of adults on Medicaid already work, and Republicans are
counting on savings from these hard-working Americans losing coverage,
too, because of paperwork? Paperwork is just going to be so
bureaucratic, so full of redtape. The goal is to make it so hard, so
damn burdensome, that nobody can do it. No one can go to work, take
care of their sick loved one, be sick themselves. They are hoping they
drop off, even if they technically qualify. This is where they find
their savings.
Aren't we supposed to cut redtape and improve the lives of our
constituents? And so this is just cruel. It is a lose-lose situation.
People can't work because they have a life-threatening illness, or they
are working and they miss the complicated new paperwork which people
are hoping that they can't do so they will drop off; and that is where
they will find the savings. They will lose their health insurance, and
maybe they will drop off, and they will lose their life too.
All for a tax break for the wealthiest, for the billionaire Cabinet
of our current President. This is just shameful.
This bill would also slash SNAP, as my colleagues before me have told
you some of the statistics. SNAP, the nutrition program that helps
nearly one in six Nevadans put food on the table. Most of these
recipients are children. When they cut this program, you tell me what
our families are supposed to do. You tell me what families are supposed
to do when they cut food assistance. How are they going to put food on
the table? What will they say to their hungry children? Sorry, kids.
You have to go hungry so billionaires can get a tax break.
This just can't be right. This just can't be right.
And it doesn't stop there. This bill threatens thousands of good-
paying union jobs in Nevada, across our country, by letting critical
tax credits for solar, for wind projects expire before those projects
can even get off the ground.
You know, in Nevada, we have more solar jobs per capita, more than
any other State in the Nation, and we have enough solar energy to power
nearly 1.3 million homes. It is a growing, terrific industry in Nevada.
We need all the energy we can get at an affordable price.
And this bill--this bill is going to decimate this important and
growing industry, not just in my State but in States across this
country.
And on top of that, Republicans have added an additional new tax on
wind and solar projects. It just won't kill the industry. Like I said,
it is going to raise prices on hard-working families, families who are
already paying too much for their energy.
I thought we were supposed to be lowering prices, creating
opportunities, expanding and investing in our infrastructure and in our
Nation. But this bill is going to add more taxes, slash products, and
raise energy prices for hard-working families.
And all of this is causing companies across the country to stall or
cancel projects over the uncertainty of losing access to the tax
credits. This means fewer jobs, less investment, and just more families
wondering, actually, how they are going to make ends meet.
And we are talking about an industry that supports nearly 280,000
American workers: electricians, technicians, construction crews. I
could go on and on about all the jobs that are in our solar and wind
industry. And we are pulling the rug right out from under them--right
out from under them--and killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, of
clean energy jobs.
Again, I want to remind you that all of this is for one purpose and
one purpose alone: to give tax breaks to billionaires.
So anyone who supports this bill is not pro-worker. They are not
looking out for underdogs, for hard-working families. They are just
focused on making the rich, well, richer. And I am not going to stand
by and let Nevada families lose access to their healthcare, to their
food assistance, to their jobs--all so billionaires can pad their
pockets.
And I want to remind people what Democrats--what we did--when we used
the reconciliation process. We expanded health insurance subsidies; and
for the first time, we gave Medicare the authority to negotiate for
lower drug prices for our seniors. We invested in our clean energy
future. We cut costs for families, instead of cutting lifelines.
And this DC Republican bill is extreme; it is cruel; and it is not
what the American people want.
People want lower costs. People want economic security. Parents want
their kids to have care when they are sick and a fair shot to thrive.
They don't want their future sold off to billionaires.
So I say to my Republican colleagues: Please don't turn your backs.
Please don't turn your backs on families who need you, who need this,
the most.
I want you to come look at my Nevada moms and my Nevada dads in the
eyes and tell them they don't matter, that their children don't matter,
that the lives of their kids don't matter because they won't get the
care they need. And I shudder to think of the consequences.
Please, come to Nevada. Sit with these parents and tell them that
they don't matter. I don't know how you could face them and gut
Medicaid to give billionaires a tax cut, but that is what you are about
to do. The American people deserve better. And I will fight every
single step of the way to make sure that they get it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am going to be brief. I promise, Senator
Van Hollen, I am going to be about 5 minutes. This is an easy one.
No. 1, I probably should have said this earlier. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, I completely disagree with the narrative of
the billionaire tax. Folks, this is actually reducing or making sure we
don't raise taxes on people like me who grew up in trailer

[[Page S3658]]

parks, didn't get my degree until I was 37, struggled to make ends
meet. Those people benefit from that. I read the bill. I think most of
you know I am detail-oriented. It is not what it seems.
I also should have thanked Senator Crapo. He is a good friend, a
great leader. I should have thanked him for the hard work he is doing.
I got a little focused on the Medicaid failed baseline that is in the
bill, but I should have started with that. Thanks to Mike Crapo and
Senator Thune, whom I admire as our leader.
I am here to talk about the production tax credit and the investment
tax credit. It is another classic example where think tanks and people
who haven't worked a day in business are setting policy in the White
House without a clue about what they are potentially doing to our grid.
A lot of people probably--I had Alex Weinstein, who is a self-
described philosopher and expert in this area in my office--talking
with three people, practitioners, that actually work in it. One is
someone who specializes in power purchase agreements for large
businesses.
Walmart is one of the most sophisticated buyers of electrons in the
world. They map out their power requirements years in advance. They
want to make sure their food doesn't spoil and they have power running.
They have already made several power purchase agreements with projects
underway, folks. This bill is basically gutting it.
Instead, everybody is high-fiving.
What is amazing to me is the mark that we laid down the other day
almost achieved the same level of cuts as the House bill, within $30
billion--within $30 billion. And instead of thinking that was progress,
somebody got cute and decided to take away in construction and put it
in service.
Let me tell you why this is disingenuous. I was a partner at
Pricewaterhouse and worked in utilities practice--large utilities, like
TECO, Duke, Florida Progress, AEP. I know this industry. I understand
baseload; I understand peaking; and I understand this technology, which
is increasingly becoming viable because of storage as a part of
augmenting baseload.
Now, we have the Walmarts and all these data centers, and everything
we wanted to bring back onshore putting in these power purchase
agreements teed to these projects, like solar, in particular, like
wind, and other innovative--renewable natural gas, methane, hydrogen. I
can go on.
But somebody, a self-described philosopher in a think tank that I
admire a lot, but I realized, if you are a philosopher and in a think
tank, you, by definition, have never worked in an operational role. You
can't possibly understand what happens to this pipeline of power
purchase agreements and the future of our grids.
Here is what is going to happen. Wipe it clean. Put an excise tax in.
Effectively throw the football into the end zone, spin it, walk away,
do the party dance. And what you have done is create a blip in power
service because there isn't going to be a gas-fired generator anytime
soon.
Folks, the generator is necessary to create power with gas--best
case, 5 years from now. That is best case, 5 years from now. So you
can't get that online and, at the same time, this whole pipeline is
going down.
So I want that philosopher to tell me that he understands how to plan
out power over time and to let me know that when all these projects
fail--some will make it, some will get subsidized, some will go
bankrupt--so it won't be Armageddon, but it is going to be a problem.
So they better get it right.
It is another example, folks, when you rush a bill and don't think
through the implementation, you don't get it right. I hope my
colleagues recognize it is half-baked. It is another reason why we
should go back to the House mark, get Medicaid right, so I can come
onto the floor and tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
why they are wrong on all the attributes of the House mark; why they
are wrong on some of their characterizations of the tax bill; and why
they will be wrong on an energy policy that makes sense.
But I have to vote against the bill for my own party--that I have
never parted from before--because we are rushing to an arbitrary
deadline with people who have never worked a day in this industry.
Maybe they philosophized and have written a few white papers on it but
haven't gotten their hands dirty. This is another segment of the bill
that needs to change.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, Donald Trump likes to call the bill
that Republicans are trying to rush through this Senate the Big
Beautiful Bill.
Well, it is big all right. It took the Senate clerks nearly 16 hours
to speed read through it. But it is only beautiful if you are a
billionaire or otherwise very wealthy in America. For everybody else,
this is a big ugly betrayal of a bill--betrayal because tax cuts for
billionaires are coming at the expense of virtually everyone else.
I agree with many of the things my colleague from North Carolina,
Senator Tillis, just said. But I have also read the bill. If you look
at the bill, the tax benefits overwhelmingly go to the very highest
income earners in the United States of America. Fifty percent of those
tax benefits go to just the top 5 percent.
So this is a choice that is being made by Donald Trump and
Republicans in Congress to give to billionaires additional tax handouts
at the expense of the rest of the country. They are choosing to engage
in a huge transfer of wealth from people who are working paycheck-to-
paycheck to those who are living off their huge inheritances or
gigantic stock portfolios.
Americans are going to have to pay for the tax cuts for billionaires
in many, many ways. Millions will lose access to healthcare. Others
will no longer be able to put food on the table. Others will not be
able to afford to pay heating bills on freezing nights. Virtually,
every American will see their energy bills increase and their health
insurance premiums go up. And every American is likely to face higher
borrowing costs for their home mortgages or car loans--again, all so
billionaires and very wealthy people can get big tax cuts.
Let's look at some of the real hits to American families, starting
with the attack on healthcare. Donald Trump said he would ``love and
cherish'' Medicaid. He said the people won't be affected. That is a
lie. What he loves are tax cuts for his billionaire buddies.
Let's just take a look. This bill pays for over a trillion dollars in
tax giveaways to people who make over $500,000 every year by cutting a
trillion dollars of health benefits from those who rely on Medicaid and
the Affordable Care Act.
Think about that tradeoff. Indeed, because of the cuts to Medicaid
and the Affordable Care Act in this bill, 12 million Americans will
lose access to healthcare coverage. On top of that, another 5 million
Americans will lose access to health coverage because Republicans
refuse to extend the tax credits that millions of middle-class
Americans use to purchase coverage through the Affordable Care Act.
So while extending tax cuts for the very wealthy, they are not
extending the healthcare tax credits that middle-class Americans use to
help afford health insurance. The result of these cuts and the refusal
to extend those tax credits means that nearly 17 million of our fellow
Americans will lose access to healthcare coverage.
In my State of Maryland, that is 229,000 of my fellow Marylanders.
And who are these Americans? Who are these Marylanders? They are babies
and children. Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program
cover 38 million children in America, 700,000 children in Maryland.
Medicaid covers 40 percent of births in America, over 40 percent of
births in Maryland. More mothers will die as a result of pregnancy-
related deaths if this bill passes.
I think we will also know Medicaid is especially important to helping
people through the vulnerable stages of their lives. It covers one in
four people with mental health or substance use disorders. It is the
primary payer for long-term health services, covering 60 percent of
nursing home residents. If even a fraction of those residents lose
coverage, entire nursing homes can close, and those families will have
to figure out how to care for their expelled loved ones. An analysis
that was done estimates that as many as 500 nursing homes could close
because they are on the cusp.

[[Page S3659]]

Rural hospitals are also especially vulnerable. It is estimated that
up to 300 rural hospitals could close if this bill passes.
Americans with disabilities, Medicaid is absolutely essential to
their lives. It helps them receive home and community-based care so
they don't have to choose between getting the care they need and being
separated from their loved ones. A study by Yale University and the
University of Pennsylvania predicts that this bill before the Senate
will result in over 51,000 preventable deaths each year--preventable
deaths. So, officially, the death certificates will say that somebody
passed away because they had late-stage cancer. It was detected too
late because they couldn't get the preventive care they needed or an
accident occurred at a nursing home because there were not enough
nurses on site. But those reasons, those conditions will have been set
because this bill passed.
And, again, making millions of Americans more vulnerable to pay for
tax cuts for the ultrawealthy is unconscionable, but it is the choice
being made in this bill.
Now, 17 million people who will lose their health coverage is a very
big number to wrap our heads around. So I want to read just a few
stories of Marylanders who rely on Medicaid and who have been watching
closely this whole effort that has unfolded on the floor of the U.S.
Senate.
I had a call from one of my constituents who has a son. Her son takes
chemotherapy, and he relies on those chemotherapy treatments to sustain
his life. She wrote to me that if he loses access to his health
insurance, that it would be ``a death sentence.''
Another Marylander wrote to me about his autistic son who is still
able to work but who depends entirely on Medicaid for support. He also
said: Please don't let the Senate pass this bill.
And the stories go on and on and on.
Just the other day, Senator Alsobrooks and I had a telephone
townhall. We had 12,000 Marylanders joining us. After that call, we
received many more stories about people who would really be in
desperate shape if they lost access to their health coverage.
Now, on top of the 17 million Americans who stand to lose their
health coverage, all other Americans are likely to see higher premiums
because what happens when you have uncompensated care is more people go
to the emergency rooms at the hospitals. Those hospitals can't just eat
all of those additional costs, and at the end of the day, those
additional costs cycle through the system in the form of higher
premiums for others. We are already seeing that impact in Maryland as
insurance companies today look at the possible liability they will have
going forward as a result of this legislation.
Beyond the 17 million who will lose access to affordable healthcare,
you also have millions of Americans who are going to be hit as a result
of the cuts to the food and nutrition programs, to the SNAP program. We
are going to see a whopping 20 percent cut--$200 billion--to the SNAP
program. Over 40 million Americans get some kind of help from that food
and nutrition program, and over 3 million of them will lose their SNAP
benefits entirely. Others will see rising costs. In Maryland, it is
going to impact 684,000 people, most of whom are families with kids.
In addition to 17 million Americans losing access to healthcare
coverage and in addition to the 40 million Americans who will be
impacted by cuts to food and nutrition programs, I want to just focus
for a moment on another hit to American households. Some of us have
discussed this on this Senate floor before, but it hasn't gotten as
much attention, and it relates to the energy bills Americans pay,
including their electric bills, because this bill will drive them up.
It directly attacks the production of more clean energy, and less
energy with rising demand means higher costs for households.
I don't know if folks remember about a year ago when Donald Trump had
a state dinner at Mar-a-Lago, where he begged 20 fossil fuel CEOs for
campaign cash. It was reported on at the time. Well, he succeeded in
raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations. Now we
see the payoff in this bill to those powerful special interests, and
that payoff comes in two forms.
First, this bill gives big oil companies a new $1 billion tax break.
As a result, some of the fossil fuel companies will pay zero dollars--
zero dollars--in Federal income tax.
Second, this bill--and the Senator from North Carolina referred to
some of the provisions that will have this impact. This bill sabotages
the production of more clean energy. It does so by slashing production
and investment tax credits for clean energy and scuttling new clean
energy projects. It continues the Trump administration's baseless
attacks on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is a program we
established that will be a win, win, win for our environment, for our
economy, and for family pocketbooks.
By cutting these clean energy incentives and initiatives, this bill
will reduce the overall amount of energy added to our electric grids by
at least 50 percent by 2035. Think about that. So this bill is going to
result in a dramatic reduction in the amount of new energy produced
that goes on the electric grids. With less energy generated and higher
demand, household energy costs and bills are going to go up. In fact,
it is predicted that household electricity bills will go up by $110 on
average as soon as next year and by up to $400 per year for families
over the next decade.
This will serve the interests of big oil and gas producers and
utility companies that benefit from the higher prices that consumers
will have to shell out. This will also do something else. It will
surrender entirely the clean energy playing field to China, which
already has a big head start on us in the area of clean energy
deployment. So this is not America first; this is very much America in
retreat.
I don't often agree with Elon Musk, but he is absolutely right when
he said just a few days ago that the latest Senate draft bill will
``destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm
to our country--utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to
industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the
future.'' That is the Republican Senate bill--looking in the rearview
mirror rather than ahead.
Again, what is the driving purpose? What is the North Star of this
bill? It is to give very, very wealthy people tax cuts at the expense
of everybody else. Everything else is sacrificed.
As a result of those tax cuts, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of the
highest income earners will get an average tax break of $255,000. The
top one-tenth of 1 percent will get a tax break of $255,000.
Individuals making over $1 million a year will get a $35,000 tax break.
As I said earlier, almost 50 percent of all of the tax benefits, all of
the tax moneys, will go to the top 5 percent of income earners. To make
that happen, as I have said, everything else gets sacrificed--cuts to
Medicaid, cuts to food and nutrition programs, cuts to clean energy
that result in higher costs for consumers.

But even after making all of those cuts and imposing all of that pain
on so many Americans, this Republican bill is still going to add over
$4 trillion to our deficit over the next 10 years and an estimated $35
trillion over the next 30 years.
So despite paying for part of those additional costs through cuts to
Medicaid and food and nutrition programs, they are going to blow the
roof off of our deficits and debt. Make no mistake, when you do that,
you cost every American because it will generate upward pressure on
interest rates, which raises costs for Americans who want to take out a
mortgage to buy a home or want to get a car loan or for small
businesses. In fact, the Yale Budget Lab projects that the House-passed
bill would add over $1,000 a year to the cost of a mortgage and over
$800 a year to the cost of a small business loan. That is the House-
passed bill. The Senate bill will be worse because the Senate bill adds
about $1 trillion more to the deficit over 10 years than the House
bill.
I do want to just focus on a final aspect of the deficit and debt
impact of the Senate Republican bill, and that is this very deliberate
effort to use fraudulent accounting to hide the deficit impact of this
bill from the American people.

[[Page S3660]]

Let me give you an example. Let's say you sign a contract to rent an
apartment for $2,000 a month. You know that is going to cost you
$24,000 for the full year. Now, at the end of the year, if you want to
keep renting that apartment at that rate, any normal person would say:
Well, that is going to cost them another $24,000. Senate Republicans
want to tell the American people that the cost of continuing to rent
that apartment for another year is zero--zero--because the amount of
rent they have to pay in year 2 is the same rent they had to pay in
year 1.
In other words, Republicans want to say that because they have been
giving billionaires and wealthy people tax cuts for 10 years, it will
cost nothing to extend them for another 10 years. That is the so-called
current policy baseline.
In other words, if you just keep in place for another 10 years those
same tax breaks for billionaires and others, we don't have to count the
lost revenue, and we don't have to count the amount the deficit will
increase as a result of that lost revenue. A third grader can see that
this is bogus math.
Let me read a colleague's statement, made this year by somebody. Here
is what he said:

Anybody that says current policy baseline [is the way to
go] is engaging in intellectual and economic fraud.

I wanted to make sure I got that quote correct because it was made by
a Republican Congressman from Arizona, Congressman Schweikert.
Here is another quote:

This is fairy dust, and they're full of crap. And I'm gonna
call them out on it.

Who said that? Congressman Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas.
I think it is worth quoting those Republican Members of Congress
because while I dramatically disagree with what they did in their House
bill, at least they used honest accounting. At least they didn't try to
perpetrate this budget fraud that we are witnessing here in the U.S.
Senate--a budget fraud that would, I dare say, make the Enron scammers
blush.
If you go through the numbers, it is dramatic. For example, an honest
scoring of the bill shows that extending the individual tax rates from
Trump 2017 will cost $2.2 trillion. That is what the House of
Representatives said--$2.2 trillion. When you use the fraudulent budget
math that Senate Republicans want to use, all of a sudden, that is $83
billion.
If you look at the cost of extending key deductions for businesses,
the House used accurate accounting; it comes to $820 billion over 10
years. Under the Senate plan, it is $6 billion.
So I am not going to spend a ton of time going over this chart, but I
do want to put it up here. This is from the Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget. The blue shade in each of these years shows what Senate
Republicans say their bill will cost in each of those years. There is
the so-called current policy baseline. This is what those House
Republican Members called fraudulent accounting, and it is. If you add
up all of those blue deficits over those 10 years, they claim it is
$441 billion additional debt over 10 years. But if you use the honest
accounting that we have always used in the U.S. Senate for the purposes
of budget reconciliation, you get the full bar, including the orange
numbers, which is $4.2 trillion in debt over those 10 years.
I do want to point out to my colleagues something interesting because
they have these dashed orange lines. What this is representing is that
some of these costs from lost revenue in some of these out-years go
down. That is because under this House Republican plan, the tax cuts
for people with the no tax on tips--they go away. They vanish. They
vanish right here in 2029. But the tax cuts for very wealthy people,
for billionaires and others--they go on for the 10 years. In fact, they
go on forever.
The last point I want to make is, by letting them go on forever--the
tax cuts for very wealthy people--Senate Republicans are violating the
entire structure of the budget reconciliation process because when it
was first devised, the entire purpose of it was to reduce our deficits
and reduce the debt. Republican Senators are perverting the entire
purpose of that special procedure that allows things to pass in the
U.S. Senate with 51 votes and not having to secure the 60-vote
threshold to overcome a filibuster. They are violating that entire
structure. Again, why? Because they are hell-bent on making sure those
tax cuts for very wealthy people go on forever--again, at the expense
of everybody else.
I will just close by pointing out that it wasn't that long ago that
just down the hall here, in the Senate Rotunda, Donald Trump took the
oath of office. He looked at the cameras, and he said he wanted a new
golden age for America.
But this is not a golden age for America. It is a gilded age for the
wealthiest people in America, and those are the people he was really
speaking to because they are the ones who were sitting behind him on
Inauguration Day: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg, the tech titans,
the billionaire Cabinet--more billionaires than any Cabinet, by far, in
American history.
That is who this bill serves. It serves very wealthy and powerful
people, and it does so at the expense of everybody else in America, in
one form or another.
And I hope--I hope--our Senate, on a bipartisan basis, will give it a
big thumbs down.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, never in my time in Congress have I seen a
bill that does so much damage in so many ways to so many people in so
many States and that will affect so many generations.
The clerks have read the bill. It is now time for us to kill the
bill. The point of reading the bill was to reveal that this bill has
one goal, and that is to extend tax cuts to very wealthy Americans--
where the top 1 percent will get 60 percent of the benefit--and to make
everyday Americans pay the price to fund those tax cuts.
It is no wonder, right now, that two in three Americans oppose this
bill. The question is, Will the U.S. Senate oppose this bill?
Here are just a few ways that the President's so-called One Big
Beautiful Bill will hurt Vermont. In Vermont, 11,500 people will lose
their healthcare coverage under ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act.
Twenty-one thousand Vermonters will lose Medicaid coverage and food
nutrition programs that are so essential to the well-being of your
citizens and mine. In Vermont, on the SNAP Program, 11 percent of our
households use it, 65,000 people. A little over a third of households
rely on the SNAP program, and they have kids. Nearly 3,000 veterans in
Vermont rely on the SNAP program.
By the way, we are talking about 6 bucks a day. Billions are going to
be cut across the country. That is going to hurt Vermont, and it is
going to hurt everyone.
In Vermont, some homeowners, to save money on their energy bills, use
the home energy efficiency upgrades that were made possible under the
Inflation Reduction Act. Those are being ripped apart. Folks saved
about $420 to $980 a year. That is real money for people living
paycheck to paycheck. This bill scraps that.
Here is the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good, we still have time
to kill this bill, and we should kill this bill. We Democrats are
united in opposition to this bill, but it is not only Democrats whose
constituents are going to be hurt by this bill.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have an opportunity to
make a choice. Read the bill and decide: Are you going to protect your
constituents who are going to suffer the same afflictions as my
constituents or are you going to defer to President Trump?
The bad in this bill is going to inflict bipartisan pain. This is not
aiming at red States or blue States. This is aimed at working-class and
middle-class Americans.
Just to give you an example, in West Virginia, a great State I
visited, I went into a coal mine--the hardest working people ever,
except maybe for Vermont dairy farmers. More than 76,000 people in West
Virginia will lose access to healthcare because of this bill. And
278,000 West Virginians are going to lose access to the nutrition
program, SNAP.
In Tennessee, more than 295,000 people will lose access to
healthcare--Medicaid--through this bill. And for SNAP, it means 758,000
Tennesseans lose their nutrition benefits.
I just want to repeat here. This is the bipartisan infliction of
pain. This is

[[Page S3661]]

real. This is real. And it is because of the tax cut largely directed
to the very wealthy people.
Is it worth inflicting that kind of pain on so many when the tax cut
benefits so few?
Let's talk more about what is in this bill, because the American
people need to know what we are voting on.
It makes major cuts, of course, as I have said, in Medicaid. But the
immediate effect of those Medicaid cuts is it really threatens the
financial stability and the viability of the community hospitals that
are in all of our communities.
Folks are going to show up to get care. Across the country, 17
million people will lose any reimbursement for Medicaid. So they will
go to our community hospitals, and they will do what they do: They will
provide care, even if they don't get paid. But they can only do that
for so long. So those hospitals are literally threatening to go out of
business in every single State.
This bill cuts Medicaid by over $930 billion. So that ripple effect
is going to hurt all of our hospitals, and, absolutely, some of those
are going to close. By the way, that is going to result in a higher
cost shift so that those employers who are doing everything they can to
provide employer-sponsored healthcare for their employees are going to
see their premiums spike badly.
The bill is going to rip away food assistance programs that more than
42 million Americans need. That is $6 a day, as I mentioned, and that
will be gone.
This, by the way, has a real impact on our farmers. They put food on
our tables. One of the things that our farmers are so proud of is they
feed America, and they feed the world. And they have been able to
supply the food that is then distributed through the SNAP program. It
is going to undercut the revenue that they get for doing really good
for a lot of people across our country.

The bill takes us backward in our effort to expand energy production
and fight climate change. The bill actually adds a tax on wind and
solar. It takes away the incentives, and it adds a tax.
Ninety-five percent of the new electric generation--and we need so
much more of it--in the past few years has come from clean energy. If
we don't have that going into production to provide energy, along with
storage technology, the cost of electricity to the people you represent
and the folks I respect in Vermont is going up.
There is another aspect of this bill that just makes no sense being
in this bill. It makes no sense being in any bill, particularly. It is
a Republican-led bill that strips States of their right to pass laws to
protect their consumers against AI threats and against social media
threats. It imposes a moratorium for 10 years on any States taking any
action. This affects Vermont directly. It affects every single one of
our States.
How, I ask, can one argue they are for State rights and then strip
States of being able to act on behalf of their own citizens?
This bill is a real threat to our economy. It is going to increase
the debt, already about $35 trillion, by at least $3.3 trillion. And
for what? Tax cuts to very, very wealthy people--very wealthy people--
multinational corporations that are having record profits, at the
expense of healthcare, at the expense of our community hospitals, at
the expense of our investments in clean energy, at the expense of our
food and nutrition programs.
Invest it in what? It is destructive. It is not productive.
Inflation is going up under this bill. Just think of how much more we
are going to pay in debt service--dead money. It is about $1 trillion.
Home mortgages, folks, are going to be paying at least $1,000 more;
small business loans, at least $1,000 more. Grocery prices are
definitely going up for all Americans.
There is an ugly aspect in this bill, as well, and it is that this
bill is entirely in service of providing tax cuts largely to the very
wealthy. The top 1 percent of income earners in this country will get
60 percent of the benefit. That is a couple hundred thousand people who
will get immense tax breaks that exceed the so-called tax breaks that
go to a couple hundred million Americans. And it is those in the 60-
percent category who are going to be paying the higher prices for
utilities, credit card debt, the cost of a car loan, rent, and
groceries.
So I say, let's come to our senses and not do something that is a
massive escalation of the wealth transferred from the working class and
the middle class to the very, very wealthy.
Many of us have a number of amendments--and I do, too--to try to make
the point that our job is to make things better for everyday working
Americans, not inflict additional burdens on them.
We have a job to do, and it is to strengthen this economy and provide
more stability for our families in our communities. In this bill, we
are doing exactly the opposite--aggravating income inequality, not
mitigating it; accelerating climate change, rather than diminishing
it--making life tougher for everyday families.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, this bill is a farce. Imagine a bunch of
guys sitting around the table and saying: I have got a great idea.
Let's give $32,000 worth of tax breaks to a millionaire, and we will
pay for it by taking health insurance away from lower income and
middle-income people. And to top it off, how about we cut food stamps--
we cut SNAP--we cut food aid to people?
It is a joke. I would say it was a joke, except it is not the least
bit funny.
I have been in this business of public policy now for 20 years--8
years as Governor, 12 years in the U.S. Senate. I have never seen a
bill this bad. I have never seen a bill that is this irresponsible,
regressive, and downright cruel.
The basic premise of the bill, as I said, is to cut benefits for the
American people, particularly in the areas of healthcare and food, in
exchange for tax cuts for the very wealthy.
I know my colleagues are going to come to the floor, because I have
had this discussion before, and they are going to say: Oh, no, this is
a middle-class tax cut. This is going to cut taxes for people in the
middle class.
Well, here is a little suggestion of how to get out of this mess: If
you cap the tax cuts at people making $400,000 a year--which is a
pretty healthy income--the cost of this bill would drop by 60 percent,
and you wouldn't have any need to cut Medicaid. By the way, there are
Medicare cuts also built into this, and SNAP. So $400,000--in other
words, we are for the middle-class tax cuts. That is OK. But just stop
it at $400,000, and don't give the tax breaks to the people--a
millionaire, under this bill, gets a $32,000 tax cut. A person making
$5 million or $10 million gets a couple hundred thousand dollars of tax
cut. I don't think they need it. They sure as hell don't need it as
much as people need health insurance.

So just to put a fine point on it, this bill is literally--and
remember my $400,000 suggestion so we are taking care of the middle
class. But with 60 percent of the cost above $400,000 in income, this
bill is literally taking food out of the mouths of kids to give a
millionaire a $32,000 tax break.
Those are the facts. They are ugly. And like I say, if we were
talking about this at random, sitting around at a lunch table, people
would say: Well, that is a joke. That is ridiculous. Nobody would
suggest that.
But here we are. And several of my colleagues, including Senator
Tillis from North Carolina, have pointed out there is no rush on this
bill. We don't have to do this bill by July 4 or July 10. There is no
rush. These tax cuts don't expire until the end of the year. Let's take
our time and write a decent bill. Let's kill this bill. It would only
take four or five Senators on the other side. We can kill this thing
and start over and write a decent bill, on a bipartisan basis, and I
think we would find agreement on middle-class tax cuts.
But I think we can also do some things with expenditures that
wouldn't be so bloody harmful. Medicaid. Let me start with hospitals.
In Maine, I have talked to the hospitals. I have talked to the hospital
association. I have talked to small hospitals, large hospitals. They
are mostly running on a
1-, 2-, or 3-percent margin. The analysis is that this could cost us
two to five of our rural hospitals.
And when a rural hospital goes out, several things happen. One thing
is the

[[Page S3662]]

economy of the town goes with it. In most of these small towns, the
hospital is the major employer. So you are talking about the economics
of those jobs in a small town that will make a huge difference in that
local economy.
The second thing that happens is a loss of services for everybody in
town, not just the Medicaid people. If that hospital closes, everybody
in town is going to have to drive another 30, 40, 50, 100 miles to get
care, and they are going to have to not only--there may be closures;
there will certainly be cutting of services. We already have a serious
problem in Maine with obstetric services. We have a county with no
obstetric services. That is only going to get worse under this bill.
The hospitals are pleading with us to not do this. And again, do we
really need to do this to give a millionaire a $32,000 tax break? It
doesn't make any sense.
Now, I have talked about hospitals, but let's talk about people. The
analysis is that 60,000 people in Maine would lose their insurance
coverage--40,000 under Medicaid, about 20,000 under the Affordable Care
Act.
We have had a lot of personal stories tonight. I want to tell a story
about myself. When I worked here in the seventies, I had insurance. It
was employer-supported insurance. We paid part of the premium. I had
insurance as a junior staff member in this body 50 years ago. Because I
had that insurance that covered a free checkup, I went in and had my
first physical in 8 years, and I wouldn't have had that physical if the
insurance hadn't covered it. I wouldn't have been able to spring for
it.
I had that physical, and the doctors found a little mole on my back.
They took it out, and I didn't think much of it. And I went in a week
later, and the doctor said: You better sit down, Angus. That was
malignant melanoma. You are going to have to have some serious surgery.
And a friend of mine who was a doctor said: Angus, here is my best
advice. Let them be as radical as they want in that surgery.
And I had the surgery, and here I am. If I hadn't had insurance, I
wouldn't be here. And it has always haunted me that some young man in
America that same year had malignant melanoma; he didn't have coverage;
he didn't have insurance; he didn't get that checkup; and he died.
That is wrong. That is immoral. So the idea of cutting health
insurance from people is just--oh, well, they just won't have coverage
for their doctors' visits. No. People die when they don't have health
insurance. There is statistical analysis to bear that out. So this
isn't any joke.
And by the way, people say: Well, we are talking about fraud in
Medicaid. Listen, at almost a trillion-dollar cut in Medicaid, 15
million people being cut off--40,000 in the State of Maine--that isn't
fraud; that is cutting people who need the care.
And I don't understand the obsession, and I never have--and I stood
right there and watched John McCain cast that vote to save the
Affordable Care Act, along with my colleague Susan Collins. I don't
understand this obsession with taking health insurance away from
people. I don't get it. Trying to take away the Affordable Care Act in
2017 or 2018 and now this. What is driving this? What is the cruelty to
do this, to take health insurance away from people, knowing that it is
going to cost them--it is hard to calculate the cost--up to and
including losing their lives.
OK. Let's talk about SNAP. Let's talk about SNAP. The average benefit
for SNAP is $6 a day. You feed yourself on $6 a day. The average cost
of a meal in the United States is about $10.50 a day, so we are already
below cost, if you will.
And here is what it means in my State. Twenty percent of the children
in my State are food insecure, and we are talking about cutting SNAP
and taking dollars away from those kids. And I was interested in that,
and I thought: Oh, that is pretty bad. I am worried Maine is at 20
percent, 20 percent of our kids are food insecure.
So I did a little research. In Arkansas, it is 24 percent of the kids
who are food insecure; in Iowa, 17 percent; South Carolina, 14 percent;
Michigan, 19 percent; Missouri, another 19 percent. That is one out of
five kids are food insecure, and we are going to cut that food in order
to give a millionaire a $32,000 tax cut.
That is not only bad policy, it is downright immoral.
OK. What is the other problem with this bill? There are so many. So
many problems, so little time. It is irresponsible. It adds about $4
trillion to the deficit. And by the way, this current policy thing
doesn't pass the straight-face test. A seventh grader knows that it is
nonsense. If this bill doesn't pass, then there isn't a $4 trillion hit
on the budget. If it passes, there is.
And the thing that really gives a lie to this nonsense is, also in
this bill is a $5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. If it is not
really debt, then we don't need to increase the debt ceiling. It is a
sham. Voodoo budgeting.
So I don't want to hear any more from my colleagues about deficits. I
don't want to hear any more crocodile tears about deficits. We are
mortgaging our future. I hear all this drama about deficits from people
who are voting for this bill to add $4 trillion to the deficit
unnecessarily.

There is a saying of a famous New Englander: Your actions speak so
loud, I can't hear your words. Your actions speak so loud, I can't hear
your words.
Your actions are, you are adding to the deficit unnecessarily, so
don't talk to me about deficits.
Now, the first rule, if you are in a hole, is stop digging. And we
are in a hole. We are in a hole. So you stop digging by not passing
this bill or not passing it in the extreme form that it is to give the
tax benefits--60 percent of the tax benefits--to people making over
$400,000 a year.
What has driven the deficit, if you go back and look over the last 20
years, there are three things: One was the unpaid-for Bush tax cuts--we
had major tax cuts and then a war that we put on the credit card; the
unpaid-for Trump tax cuts in 2017; and COVID. Now, COVID was an
emergency. And the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 and 2010, those
were emergencies. That is where you run deficits. But you don't run
deficits when times are good, and that is exactly what we are doing
here.
If you are in a hole, stop digging.
By the way, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a
nonpartisan group, has said--and I haven't heard this mentioned--this
bill will actually accelerate the insolvency of the Social Security
trust fund and the Medicare trust fund. There is a nice thing for you.
It will make those funds go insolvent sooner than would otherwise be
the case.
Gutting the IRS. By the way, I have another suggestion for my
colleagues. You want to find $600 billion a year? Enforce the tax laws
against cheaters. That is the estimate: $600 billion a year is left on
the table because cheaters, mostly high-income, are not paying the
taxes they owe. The poor stiff that gets a 1040, he has to pay it.
Everybody knows what he is making. But it is these people with the
fancy lawyers and accountants--and I am not talking about tax avoidance
here. I am talking about stone-cold tax evasion, $600 billion a year.
That would be nice, instead of cutting Medicare and Medicaid and food
stamps.
Another piece of this bill that hasn't gotten much attention is ICE.
The current budget of ICE is $9 billion a year. Under this, they are
increasing it $75 billion over 4 years. That is an additional $18
billion a year. They are tripling the budget of ICE. They are tripling
the budget. We are dangerously close to creating a Federal police
force, which we have never had in this country, and we shouldn't have.
And by the way, I have never in my life seen a law enforcement
officer with a mask on. I don't get where that came from, a law
enforcement officer wearing a mask. Where I come from, people that wear
masks are not the good guys, and I don't understand that.
But to triple this budget, you wonder where that is going to take
this country.
So let me go back to the beginning. All this damage to give a tax
break to a guy who is making a million bucks.
The chairman of the Finance Committee wasn't here, I think, when I
said this. Mr. Chairman, if we limit the tax cuts to people making
$400,000 and less, it will reduce the cost of this bill by 60 percent.
It will ameliorate the need for any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. It would
also minimize the hit on the debt and the deficit.

[[Page S3663]]

There is no rush to pass this bill. Let's kill it, give it a merciful
death over the next 24 hours, and then start over writing a responsible
bill to deal with the expiring tax cuts for the middle class and deal
with issues within the Federal Government that should be addressed.
But this bill is not the answer. It is a sham, and it is a shame, and
it is embarrassing to even be debating this bill. It should have never
come before us in this form. I hope that enough of my colleagues will
see that this is an unnecessary damage to the citizens of this country
and the citizens of their State. Every State's citizens are going to
suffer, and this is something that we, in this body, can and should
prevent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

____________________