[Pages S4037-S4074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 1, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
title II of H. Con. Res. 14.

Pending:

Thune (for Graham) amendment No. 2360, in the nature of a
substitute.
Schumer motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair that Thune
point of order under section 313(b)(1)(E) of the
Congressional Budget Act against Thune (for Graham) amendment
No. 2360 (listed above).

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.

H.R. 1

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, Senate Republicans have to decide:
choose the American people or bow down to Donald Trump and his coterie
of billionaires because this bill, as we have said for months, steals
people's healthcare, jacks up their electricity bills, takes away their
jobs--all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
All month, Senate Democrats have put this bill on trial in the court
of public opinion. We have exposed how it steals Medicaid for more than
16 million Americans. We have exposed how it takes away food benefits
from millions of hungry kids. We have exposed how this bill increases
the debt by $3.5 trillion to bankroll billionaire tax breaks. We have
shown how this bill increases the debt $1 trillion more than the House
bill. We have shown how this bill cuts Medicaid even more than the
House bill. We have shown how this bill kills climate jobs even more
than the House bill.
With every rewrite, Senate Republicans have made their bill more
extreme, pro-billionaire, and more hostile to people's healthcare and
livelihoods. Why do they do that? There is a small group on that side
of the aisle--the MAGA hard-rightwingers--who is dictating what has
happened, and all the rest of the Senators on the Republican side, who
know it is wrong, go along. It is a small group. They don't represent
more than 10 percent of the American people, but they are dictating
what this body does, A, because of the rules we have--a simple
majority--but, B, because our colleagues on the Republican side lack
the courage of their convictions to do the right thing for the American
people.
It is outrageous cutting people's healthcare, causing people to get
sicker and to even die; cutting people's healthcare so that it is
certain, almost, that more people will die--just to give tax breaks to
billionaires. It is so destructive for Republicans to pass a bill like
this at a time when people pay more for groceries, when people pay more
for rent, pay more for childcare, pay more for medication. It makes no
sense to reward the billionaire class and special interests at the
expense of everyone else.
Look, there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, but they don't need
another tax break, and they certainly shouldn't get a tax break by
taking food from the mouths of hungry children--how outrageous, how
cruel, how mean, how heartless, how uncaring--all to help the
billionaires, whom they are enthralled to.
No surprise about it, many Republicans themselves don't seem all
happy about the bill in front of them. We heard what our colleague from
North Carolina had to say about this bill. My guess is about half--
maybe even more than half--of the Republicans in the Senate totally
agree with him, but he had the courage to speak the truth--the backbone
to speak the truth--but not our other colleagues. Senator Tillis spoke
candidly. He was one of

[[Page S4038]]

the few truth-tellers on the other side as the bill devastates his
State.
But make no mistake about it, it will devastate the States of most
every Republican here. Week after week, month after month, year after
year, when this bill passes, the destructive treatise will be all over
their States, with people losing jobs, with people's costs going up,
with people not getting healthcare, with hungry kids not getting food.
It is a piece of legislation that Tillis can't sell back home, and
you won't be able to either, my Republican colleagues.

How can any Senator go home and tell their constituents, ``I am
sorry. I took away your healthcare because I wanted to give tax breaks
to billionaires''?
Yet, Republicans are dead set on walking off a cliff by passing a
bill they know will be ruinous to their own constituents.
That is why Democrats--Senate Democrats--forced this Chamber to read
the bill cover to cover. That is why we debated all day yesterday, and
now it is the Republicans' turn to vote.
Later this morning--very soon--we will begin the vote-arama process.
Senate Democrats will bring one amendment after the other--again and
again and again--to put Republicans on the record. We will begin this
morning with a motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair to try to
reverse Republicans' brazen attempts to deceive the American people
about the true costs of the bill.
Republicans are doing something that has never been done before in
the Senate by deploying fake math and budgetary hocus-pocus to make it
seem like their billionaire giveaways don't cost anything. That is
obviously outrageous, and it is absurd that the Budget chair is taking
the Senate down this fact-free road. He is helping erode and even
destroy the Senate. Every Senator will soon have an opportunity to
reject this nonsense.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will remind the Senator of rule XIX.
Mr. SCHUMER. Every Senator will soon have an opportunity to reject
this nonsense and vote for commonsense budgeting. Americans will be
watching.
Later this morning, I will offer a very simple amendment to send this
bill back to the Finance Committee so that we can get rid of any
provision that raises healthcare costs for families and small
businesses to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. My colleagues will
offer many other amendments here too. We will see, once and for all, if
Republicans really meant all of those nice things they have been saying
about strengthening Medicare and about protecting middle-class families
or if they were just lying. The American people will find out in a few
hours.
Republicans have said they don't want to cut Medicaid. Today, we will
give you the chance.
Republicans say they want to prioritize the middle class. Today, we
will give you the chance.
Our amendments will give Republicans so many chances to defend
Medicaid and SNAP and good-paying jobs and clean energy that, if they
say no, they will regret it long after this debate is done.
Finally, to my Republican colleagues, let me offer a warning in good
faith. You all know that Donald Trump makes things up. He has no regard
for the truth. When he talks about this bill, he is lying. When Donald
Trump says this bill won't cut Medicaid, he is lying. When he says this
bill will grow the economy, he is lying. When he says this is the best
thing Congress could pass for our country, he is lying.
So what are my colleagues on the Republican side going to do--listen
to someone who just makes things up? listen to someone who peddles lies
and fantasies? follow Donald Trump off a political cliff by passing a
bill that will be disastrous for the people back home or will my
colleagues stand up for the American people--stand up to protect
healthcare, good-paying jobs, and middle-class families?
The American people will not forget what Republicans do in this
Chamber today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. To my colleagues, it is going to be a long
day. I just want to remind everybody the rules of the Senate, rule XIX,
that no Senator to debate shall directly or indirectly, by any form of
words, impute to another Senator or other Senators any conduct or
motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

H.R. 1

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are going to vote here real soon on a
bill that has been worked on for many, many months. I want to start by
thanking the staff on the committees, the relevant committees, the
floor staff--everybody who has been around who has to put in the hours
and get us to where we are today. They are extraordinary people who are
very dedicated to their jobs and the public service, and we are
grateful for that.
I will say, too, we went through the reading of the bill--which the
Democratic leader just pointed out was important for people to hear--
through the middle of the night. I don't think there was a big American
audience for that. I think a lot of people were at their jobs, working
their shifts--people like nurses and firefighters who are going to
benefit under this bill. To think that they were sitting there in their
jobs watching the bill be read on the floor for endless hours in the
middle of the night--I am not sure what that achieved; but I will tell
you what the Senator said, the Democrat leader, back in 2021, when a
Republican Senator required that to be done. He said this:

It will accomplish little more than a few sore throats for
the Senate clerks who work very hard day in, day out to help
the Senate function.

Those clerks are here today. And one of the reasons that we tried to
give them a break last night is because they had to stay here the night
before to read through the bill. In the dead of the night, nobody
watching, but they did it. So, hopefully, they got a little bit of rest
last night so we can start this off.
Mr. President, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was one of the most
successful economic policy pieces of legislation in history, and the
data bears it out. Look at what happened. After the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act passed, unemployment hit a 50-year low, poverty levels at record-
level lows, and incomes grew. Incomes and wages increased most among
lower income Americans. We started to narrow the wage gap as a result
of the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
So what is this about? This is about extending that tax relief so the
same people who benefited from it back in 2017 and for the last 8 years
don't end up having a colossal, massive tax increase hitting them in
the face come January 1.
Now, who are those people? It is people, it is families making less
than $400,000 a year on whom the bulk of this would fall; $2.6 trillion
of this tax hike that they are supporting would hit families making
less than $400,000 a year.
It would hit small businesses to the tune of $600 billion in tax
increases. These are passthrough businesses, the businesses that are
out there creating the jobs every day. If we don't do this, they are
going to face a $600 billion tax increase. That is what we are talking
about.
If you want to put it in plain terms, if you are one of those
families making less than $400,000 a year, the child tax credit would
be cut in half, the standard deduction would be cut in half, and you
wouldn't get the benefit that many taxpayers are going to get under the
legislation that we are going to be debating today, which would allow
tips to go untaxed, allow overtime to go untaxed. Those nurses, those
firefighters who are working the long shifts, not watching the bill be
read here on the Senate floor, actually get something out of this that
makes their families more able to cope with the challenges that they
face every day. So the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was a massive--by any
stretch of the imagination--success.
There is probably no better evidence of that than the fact that the
Congressional Budget Office, which has been quoted a lot here in the
last few hours, actually underestimated the amount of revenue that
would come into the Federal Government by $1.5 trillion, underestimated
the amount of growth in the economy by 5.4 percent--dramatically
underestimated what it would generate in terms of revenue and what it
would generate in terms of growth. So let's just say what this is.

[[Page S4039]]

And, by the way, billionaires next year will pay the same tax rate
they are paying this year. The people who are going to get hit with a
tax increase if we don't do something are those families making less
than $400,000 a year, who are going to see their child tax credit cut
in half, their standard deduction cut in half, and their rates go back
up to what they were in 2017. In my State of South Dakota, the average
family is going to pay $2,500 more if we don't do something to extend
the tax relief that was passed in 2017.
The other thing that the Democrat leader got up and talked about is:
Oh, they are going to be cutting Medicaid. There are a lot of
government programs that haven't been looked at in a long time. We all
acknowledge that 75 percent now of Federal spending is what we call
mandatory spending, entitlement programs, things that Congress doesn't
annually appropriate for. And it continues to grow at an uncontrollable
rate.

In fact, the growth and the rate of Medicaid spending in the last 5
years has been 50 percent. That is not sustainable. We know that is not
sustainable.
In the time I have been here, we have never, ever done anything to
reform and improve and strengthen these programs that are growing at an
unsustainable rate that will wreck our economy and wreck our country if
we don't start making some changes.
So, yes, there are some improvements and reforms to Medicaid to make
it more efficient, to make sure that the people who are supposed to
benefit from Medicaid do, and that it doesn't go to people who
shouldn't benefit from Medicaid.
Now, most of the increase in spending in Medicaid has been at what we
call the expansion population, and that is the number of people out
there for whom States get a 90-percent reimbursement from the Federal
Government. So that has grown dramatically.
And what does that represent? It is a lot of able-bodied adults--
people who should be working, people who, perhaps, don't need to be
getting the assistance that is designed for people who are disabled,
and the low-income, the elderly, and pregnant moms. That is what
Medicaid was about.
States have, with the Federal Government, a partnership, shared for
the years at a traditional rate. The expansion population is 90
percent, paid for by the Federal taxpayers. So what do States do? They
game the system to get more Federal money. They add more people to the
rolls. So you have people on the rolls today who are here illegally and
people on the rolls here today who are not eligible for this program,
and you have people here today in that program for whom there is no
work requirement. So what this does is it makes some reforms, one of
which--one of which--includes work requirements.
I don't think that is a novel concept. It certainly isn't a concept
that I think most Americans would disagree with.
In fact, it was a Democrat President. Back in the 1990s, there was
something called welfare reform. Bill Clinton, a Democrat President,
proposed work requirements for welfare recipients.
And do you want to know something? The work requirements in the
Welfare Reform Act passed back in 1996 and signed into law by Democrat
President Bill Clinton had stronger work requirements than are included
in this bill--stronger work requirements in a bill passed, signed into
law by a Democrat President than what is in this bill, and proposed, I
might add, by a Democrat President.
So that is one of the reforms that we are making. These are the
reforms that are going to make this program stronger, more effective,
more efficient, improve it in a way that it gets the assistance to the
people for whom it was intended and not to people who are gaming the
system.
And, yes, we address the issue of provider taxes, which has been
abused--no question about it. It is another way to leverage Federal
money, get more Federal money into the State coffers. And the States
have used it for things not just to cover people but also for other
reasons; and you have States like New York and California who gamed the
system.
The whole issue of what we are doing with the Medicaid Program is to
get rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse and make it work in the way in
which it was intended, to cover the people for whom it was intended,
and to make sure that we have work requirements included in there.
To the current policy baseline--everybody got up last night, and they
were clamoring and yelling--very animated speeches--about how the
Republicans are using the current policy baseline--how could they ever
do that?
Well, do you know what? Back in 2012, President Obama and one of the
people who was working for him at the time named Jeff Zients used the
current policy baseline to make permanent the Bush tax cuts. And the
way he described it--Jeff Zients described it at the time--he called it
the alternative fiscal scenario. That is how they explained it to the
American people. Then he translated it and said: What it is, it is a
current policy baseline.

So the Democrats have used this before. In fact, they kind of--you
can argue--pioneered it. But current policy baseline is something that
has been used by both sides. So spare me the hypocrisy and the noise
about current policy baseline. Alternative fiscal scenario, he called
it, and then he went on to explain current policy baseline.
Finally, with regard to the issue of the deficits. It is rich to hear
Democrats all of a sudden concerned about debt and deficits. Really? I
mean, I have been here a long time, and I have not been involved in a
single spending debate and fight in which Republicans were trying to
spend less and Democrats were trying to spend more, with one
exception--with one exception--and that is national security. Democrats
are always willing to cut defense but never want to cut anywhere else.
That is my experience.
And I think it was borne out a couple of years ago when Democrats had
then but we have now, which is unified control of the government--the
House, Senate, and White House. So they had an opportunity to use
reconciliation, which they did twice. One of the bills cost $2
trillion; the other bill cost $1 trillion. And it was all spending. And
that, ladies and gentlemen, is the fundamental difference between us
here, and I understand that. We have different views about the role of
government. Democrats like government, and one of the things we know
about government is when you send money to Washington--money is power,
and when you send money to Washington from the American taxpayers, that
means Washington has more power; it has more control. And Republicans
fundamentally have believed that it is better if you allow the American
people to keep their own money, that you distribute power out of
Washington, DC, back to State and local governments, which are closer
to the people and can make better decisions that are more informed by
what is actually happening in their individual States.
So when we use reconciliation to keep taxes low--and, by the way,
that is all we are doing here, is extending current tax policy. We are
preventing over a $4 trillion tax increase on the American people. And
when you vote against us, that is what you would be voting for.
Now, a good example of this spending issue was the 2011 Budget
Control Act in which--authored by a number of people, including Senator
McConnell--that created a supercommittee equally represented on both
sides of the aisle. And they met for a long time trying to come up with
some ways that we could come up with, ways to reform the entitlement
programs. And, of course, what happened is they deadlocked because
every Democrat voted against it and every Republican voted for it. It
even included some revenue increases, which is something Democrats are
always for.
So getting up and talking about deficits all of a sudden, honestly,
is kind of mind-blowing coming from this side of the aisle. What we are
doing here is extending existing tax policy, using a current policy
baseline which was used by the Democrats, President Obama, Jeff Zients,
no less than a little more than 10 years ago.
It is time to vote, and Democrats are going to get a chance to offer
all of their amendments, and they will attack this thing as cutting
taxes for billionaires. What we are doing here is extending tax relief
for the American people, keeping their rates low, making sure they
don't have their child tax

[[Page S4040]]

credit cut in half, their standard deduction cut in half, including new
provisions that provide more relief for working Americans, which is
what President Trump campaigned on. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime,
lower taxes for seniors, for Social Security recipients--these are all
targeted at working Americans, working families. That is, first and
foremost, what this is about.
This will make this country safer, stronger, and more prosperous. It
addresses military modernization. It addresses securing our border. It
addresses security dominance. It extends tax relief for the American
people so they can avoid a $4 trillion tax increase at the end of the
year. And, yes, it includes some savings associated with reforms that
are made in a way that targets assistance from Federal programs to
where it was intended to go. And, yes, we have work requirements--work
requirements that were initiated by Bill Clinton and the Clinton
administration during welfare reform back in the 1990s; only, I would
say again, they are not as strong.
The work requirements included in that legislation back in the
1990s--what we have in this bill, the work requirements here are not as
strong.
Mr. President, let's vote. This is good for America. This is good for
the American people. It is good for working families.
It has been a long debate. I know people are weary, but at the end of
the day, we want to get this done so that this country is safer and
stronger and more prosperous, not only for today but for future
generations of Americans.

Order of Business

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes
equally divided prior to all rollcall votes in relation to Calendar No.
107, H.R. 1.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, we are about to vote on something
that we have never seen before in the Senate, and rather than be honest
with the American people about the true costs of these billionaire
giveaways--and, by the way, I didn't hear Trump campaigning on tax
breaks for billionaires, which is the main thrust of this bill. He
wouldn't tell them about that.
But Republicans are doing something the Senate has never done before:
deploying fake math, accounting gimmicks, to hide the true cost of the
bill.
Look, Republicans can use whatever budgetary gimmicks they want to
try to make the math work on paper, but you can't paper over the real-
life economic consequences of adding tens of trillions to the debt, and
that is what this does, make no mistake about it. And it is the way we
have always calculated things.
So to vote yes on this--make no mistake about it, my colleagues--will
in a dramatic way further erode the Senate. I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as to being weary, I feel great. I have
never felt better. I have been wanting to do this for, like, a long
time, and our ship is about in. So I am a very happy Budget chair.
As to what we are talking about right now, we are not overruling the
Parliamentarian because she said it was up to the Budget chairman to
set the baseline. The Chair made a decision that was right. The budget
resolution gives me the authority--that we all passed--to do this.
In 2008, Senator Conrad changed the baseline to accommodate the farm
bill, and the Republican former chairman, Judd Gregg, said: The
chairman of the Budget Committee declared the baseline under a new
budget. The Budget chairman has a right to do that.
That is what I am doing.
In 2022, Senator Sanders directed CBO to write a new scoring rule
changing the baseline to get Head Start money into the budget. So this
has been done.
In 2012, in a bipartisan fashion, as the Bush tax cuts were about to
expire, they extended them using current policy.
Back home: What I am trying to do--and I am very happy about it--is
make sure the tax cuts don't expire 10 years from now. I want you to be
able to go to bed tonight and wake up tomorrow knowing the tax cuts you
have today are permanent, unless one day my Democratic colleagues
change it through reconciliation.
So if you are for open borders, this bill is your worst nightmare
because we control the border. If you want higher taxes, which
apparently they do, this bill is your nightmare because we are going to
keep taxes low. If you want to have a weak military, this is a bad bill
for you because we give the military $150 billion. If you think
Washington should control spending, this is a good bill for you. If you
think the government is running just perfectly and nothing could be
changed, this is your nightmare.
So for those big liberal folks--whom I like personally--this bill is
a nightmare for you. This bill is good for the American people who work
hard. People have got to work when they can. That is a good thing. If
you want taxes low, we deliver. If you want to secure the border like
President Trump has done, we make it that way forever by having $175
billion spent to get it controlled forever, not just right now. This is
a good bill. We are doing nothing that we haven't done before.
Vote yes to uphold the ruling of the Chair. We are starting a process
that is long overdue in this town: controlling spending, keeping taxes
down, making the military strong, and finally, finally, looking at a
way to get efficiency in government. Vote yes.

Vote on Appealing the Ruling of the Chair

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 330 Leg.]

YEAS--53

NAYS--47

Order of Business

Point of Order

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I make a point of order under section
313(b)(1)(b) of the Congressional Budget Act against title VII of
substitute amendment No. 2360.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the Congressional Budget Act, in the
presence of the Senate, the Chair must rely on the determinations made
by the Budget Committee in assessing the budgetary effects of the
amendment. Section 312 of the Budget Act states:

For purposes of this title and title IV, the levels of new
budget authority, outlays, direct spending, new entitlement
authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined
on the basis of estimates made by the

[[Page S4041]]

Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or
the Senate, as applicable.

Unless the Budget Committee, speaking to its chairman, asserts that
the amendment causes a violation of the Budget Act, the Chair will not
so hold.
Therefore, the point of order is not well-taken.
The Senator from Oregon is recognized.

Appealing the Ruling of the Chair

Mr. MERKLEY. I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
There is now 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the CBO
letter of June 29 to the ranking member of the Budget Committee be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

June 29, 2025.
Re Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title VII, Finance, Within
an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1.

Hon. Jeff Merkley,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Merkley: I am writing to provide
information you requested regarding the Congressional Budget
Office's analysis of an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as
posted on the website of the Senate Committee on the Budget
on June 27, 2025 (https://tinyurl.com/2ejs4ut5).
CBO prepared two estimates for the legislation. The first
is relative to the budget enforcement baseline for
consideration in the Senate. That baseline reflects
adjustments regarding current tax policy made by the Chairman
of the Senate Committee on the Budget.
The second estimate is relative to CBO's January 2025
baseline. CBO is required to construct its baseline under the
assumptions specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) and the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(P.L. 93-344).
In response to your questions--about the cost of title VII,
Finance, estimated against CBO's January 2025 baseline--here
are CBO's answers:
Would title VII, Finance, increase the deficit by more than
$1.5 trillion over the 2025-2034 period?
Yes. CBO estimates that enacting title VII would increase
the deficit by nearly $3.5 trillion over the 2025-2034 period
relative to the amount in the January 2025 baseline.
Would title VII, Finance, increase deficits in any year
beyond 2034?
Yes, CBO estimates that title VII would also increase
deficits in years after 2034.
I hope this information is useful to you. Please contact me
if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, and in this letter, it notes that the
baseline was prepared--the alternative baseline--based on a request
made by the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget.
But the letter goes on to say this:

The CBO estimates that enacting this title [VII] would
increase the deficit by $3.5 trillion over the 2025-3034
period.

Clearly, that amount, done by honest numbers from CBO, exceeds the
budget resolution level, and, therefore, we should not affirm the
ruling of the Chair.
It is said in this ruling, I just heard, that precedent provides a
foundation for this. But, in fact, the ability of the Chair to create a
phony baseline has never been used in reconciliation, not ever, and, in
fact, the example cited over Head Start--Head Start--that never
appeared in any budget reconciliation.
And, in fact, that conversation about Jeffrey Zients that we heard
from the majority leader, that, too, was absolutely wrong. Current law
was used for estimating the cost of that bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. This is a 51-year tradition of the Senate for honest
numbers--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
The Senator from Idaho.
MR. CRAPO. Mr. President, we are just rehashing the same old
arguments, but I want to make something really clear. This Congress, in
the budget resolution for this reconciliation, adopted the current
policy baseline. CBO scored that current policy baseline. It said that
our bill generates a $506 billion deficit reduction.
The ranking member for the Budget Committee asked them to give it a
new score based on a different baseline, the current law baseline,
which says that we have to say that if we don't raise people's taxes,
that we are causing a deficit.
They said they would. They always do. They give the scores that
different Members of Congress asked them to give. And they gave that
score and said: Well, if you raise taxes by $4 trillion, then you will
have a $4 trillion increase in tax revenue. That is what the whole
debate is about, folks.
You can complain and use different words and deficits and all that
stuff. There is a CBO score on the baseline adopted by this Congress on
this resolution that sets the score at $506 or $507 billion of deficit
reduction.

Vote on Appealing Ruling of the Chair

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 331 Leg.]

YEAS--53

NAYS--47

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
47.
The decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Risch
and I be permitted to speak for up to 1 minute each regarding the
recent tragedy in our State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Idaho Shootings

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the Senate has important work to accomplish
today to prevent a more than $4 trillion tax hike on American workers
and families, and we will accomplish that goal. However, while business
continues here, life for the North Idaho community of Coeur d'Alene
remains at a very painful standstill as we mourn the horrific loss of
two firefighters.
Yesterday afternoon, firefighters from Coeur d'Alene and Kootenai
County were responding to a fire on Canfield Mountain. Upon arrival,
they were ambushed by gunfire. Two brave firefighters were murdered.
Another has already undergone surgery for gunshot wounds.
As we continue our work today, I ask my colleagues to join me in
sending your prayers for that firefighter's full recovery, for the
deceased victims, for their families, and for the entire North Idaho
community grieving this heinous act.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, fellow Senators, while the Senate continues
our important work to provide the American people with the largest tax
cut in history today, we would be remiss if we did not pause for a
moment and call attention to the tragic events

[[Page S4042]]

that happened in Coeur d'Alene, ID, yesterday.
While responding to a fire, as my colleague indicated, two of North
Idaho's brave firefighters were ambushed and murdered, and one is in
serious to critical condition. This evil attack on the people who
dedicate their lives to protecting and serving our communities is
despicable, and it is not Idaho.
I ask my Senate colleagues to join me, Senator Crapo, and all
Idahoans in praying for the victims, the loved ones, and all who have
been affected by this reprehensible act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I stand with my Idaho colleagues. This
is a very tight-knit community between Washington and Idaho. Many
Washington police and responders participated in yesterday's
activities.
Our hearts go out to the people of Idaho. Yes, we want a moment of
silence to remember these firefighters.
Mr. RISCH. Thank you, and thank you to Washington for your help. You
did send a number of first responders, which was very helpful. Thank
you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I, too, want to stand and join with our
colleagues from Idaho with our deep sorrow for everyone in those
impacted communities. It is close to the border of Washington.
Many of our responders joined with all of you, and our hearts and
thoughts and prayers go to everyone impacted. That community will be
devastated for a long time to come.
Mr. CRAPO. As we close, I would like to thank my colleagues from
Washington as well as all of you. Many of you have come up and
expressed your sentiments today.
I would say even the Federal workers were there, the FBI and others.
There was a huge influx of support from those who put their lives on
the line every day, and some lost their lives yesterday.
Because of that, I ask you to join us for just a moment of silence
and prayer.
(Moment of silence.)
Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. President.

H.R. 1

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when the Senate considers the
reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, it is my intention to make the following
motions to commit the bill:

1. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance
of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would
prevent changes in policy that will lead to increased
electricity prices for American families and small
businesses, while protecting American energy jobs.
This motion to commit is supported by Senators Cantwell,
Bennet, Warren, Smith, Lujan, Warnock, Welch, Booker,
Gallego, Heinrich, Hickenlooper, Rosen, Schatz, Schiff,
Schumer, and Shaheen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Motion to Commit

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] moves to commit the
bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:

Mr. Schumer moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to
report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting
any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes
that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would reduce the cost of health care for American
families and small businesses while ensuring the wealthy and
big corporations pay their fair share.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment, the first we will offer,
is simple. It undoes the travesty that is at the core of the Republican
bill. Their bill, the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which is really a
big, ugly betrayal, cuts taxes for billionaires by taking away
healthcare from millions of people. My amendment simply says that if
people's healthcare costs go up, the billionaire tax cuts vanish.
Republicans--you can tell in the speeches already--are on the
defensive. They know how bad this bill is for the American people. They
know that Donald Trump is lying when he says it won't cut healthcare.
I salute my colleague from North Carolina. We all heard what our
colleague from North Carolina had to say yesterday about this bill. My
guess is about half--maybe even more than half--of the Republicans in
the Senate agree with him. But he had the courage to speak the truth.
He said it himself: The bill devastates his State. But make no mistake
about it, it will devastate the States of almost every Republican here.
It is outrageous--outrageous--to take food out of the mouths of
hungry children, to take healthcare away from people who need it to
survive--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time expired.
Mr. SCHUMER.--just for tax cuts for billionaires, and the American
people know it.
To my colleagues--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. To my colleagues, in conclusion, I say you know what the
right thing is. Say no to cutting healthcare. Say no to gutting jobs.
Mr. CORNYN. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. Say no to this shameful, backwards bill and vote yes on
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senate from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. This is something we will hear a lot of today, and this
will just be the first shot at it.
The bottom line is, billionaires are going to pay the same amount of
taxes after this bill as they paid before this bill. They are going to
pay the same amount. This notion about billionaires getting tax cuts at
the expense of everybody else is just the politics of class rather than
the politics of fear. The rest of the argument is the politics of fear.
The reality is, the reforms we are putting into place are to try to
rein in control of wasteful and fraudulent and abusive spending that
actually diverts resources away from the people who these programs
really deserve to receive.
I urge a strong ``no'' vote against this amendment.

Vote on Motion to Commit

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 332 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

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

[[Page S4043]]

Motion to Commit

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] moves to commit
to the bill, H.R. 1, to the Committee on Finance of the
Senate with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days.

Mr. MERKLEY. I further ask that further reading of the motion be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:

Mr. Markey moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would strike any provision that would result in
increased likelihood of rural hospitals being forced to
close, convert, or reduce or stop providing services,
including emergency care, mental and behavioral health care,
and labor and delivery services.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to cut any part of this
``Big Ugly Bill'' that would force rural hospitals to limit their
services or actually close their doors.
I have released a list of more than 300 rural hospitals across the
country at risk of closing or stopping services because of any major
cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
Today, that is what Republicans are guaranteeing with a $1 trillion
cut to our healthcare system that they would create in this bill.
My Republican colleagues' so-called Medicaid cuts replacement fund is
like giving aspirin to a cancer patient. It is not enough. It is
pathetically inadequate to deal with the healthcare crisis Republicans
are creating here today on the Senate floor.
No billionaire tax break or Donald Trump pat-on-the-back is worth the
risk of people's lives.
Vote yes on this motion. Stop these healthcare cuts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, more of the politics of fear. Rural
hospitals and providers not only deliver essential healthcare services
in their communities but also strengthen local economies, employing
hundreds of individuals and supporting regional business development.
Unfortunately, for far too long, some rural hospitals have struggled
to achieve financial stability, even with a wide range of targeted
payment enhancements. These issues predate the consideration of the
reforms that we are including in the legislation today.
Let me be clear. This amendment is intended to derail this very bill.
The Finance Committee has a long tradition of coming together on
bipartisan issues, like bolstering our rural healthcare system. I look
forward to working with all of my colleagues to advance permanent
solutions to provide rural providers, from telehealth to innovative
reimbursement models.
Today, we need to pass this essential legislation, and I oppose this
amendment.

Vote on Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. MARKEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 333 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--51

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

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments,
motions, or points of order; that amendments be reported by number,
with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendments or motions: Wyden, motion to commit; Coons, motion to
commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.

Point of Order

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the
pending measure contains an unfunded intergovernmental mandate, and
thus it violates section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
In nutrition assistance alone, this bill shifts tens of billions of
dollars onto the States, creating chaos for State budgets and hardship
for families.
The CBO score for this bill says this:

The nontax provisions of the substitute amendment would
impose intergovernmental and private sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and that the
SNAP cost-shift provision would impose the largest
intergovernmental mandate.

Seriously, the largest shift in this whole bill, the largest unfunded
mandate is on the backs of kids and veterans and seniors and people
with disabilities.
Sixty-four billion dollars over to the States, 44 of them have
balanced budget amendments. You know they can't pay for this. It is
hurting local grocery stores; it is hurting our farmers; and it is all
done to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
I say to our colleagues, vote for families over billionaires. Vote
for fiscal sanity over this ``Big Beautiful Betrayal,'' and vote yes.
This is an unfunded mandate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Motion to Waive

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise to waive the point order raised by
my colleague from Minnesota. I urge my colleagues to vote to waive the
point of order.
In 2023, the SNAP payment error exceeded 11 percent--11 percent--
amounting to more than $10 million in misspent taxpayer dollars. This
underscores the need for stronger State accountability in administering
this program.
This title incentivizes States to be a better steward of taxpayer
dollars to use resources that are prioritized for those most in need.
If a State's payment error is below 6 percent, that State is exempt
from any share of the cost of SNAP benefits. This is a reasonable
approach that will help preserve the integrity and long-term
sustainability of the program.
There is ample time for the States to adjust, plan, and budget for
this to take effect in 2028. States can also work to lower their
payment error rate over the next couple of years so that they would be
exempt from the match altogether.
Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order for the
consideration of the pending legislation, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[[Page S4044]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 334 Leg.]

YEAS--51

NAYS--48

NOT VOTING--1

Scott (SC)

The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Motion to Commit

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] moves to commit the
bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report
back forthwith.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the motion be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:

Mr. Wyden moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) would strike any provision that cuts funding for
Medicaid; and
(3) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay
a fair share in taxes.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is a motion supported by all Finance
Democrats to send the bill back to the Finance Committee to strike all
the Medicaid cuts and ensure that big corporations and the ultrawealthy
pay their fair share in taxes.
It is now clear that there is bipartisan opposition in the Senate to
the Medicaid cuts in this bill. That is because it is the biggest
Medicaid cut in history and represents the largest transfer of wealth
in history.
It is caviar over kids, hedge funds over healthcare, Mar-a-Lago over
the middle class.
These Medicaid cuts are going to reach down into every corner of our
Nation's healthcare system. We have heard from rural America: Rural
hospitals will close their doors.
Seniors are going to lose care at home and be left with fewer nursing
homes and fewer nurses. Kids with disabilities will lose healthcare. We
saw them on the steps of the Capitol last night.
Never have I seen legislation--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WYDEN.--focused on denying healthcare to eligible Americans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WYDEN. This amendment is an opportunity to take these awful
Medicaid cuts off the table and find another way forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Good morning. It is great to be here.
I want to share with America the great work that Republicans have
done on Medicaid. We are preserving it. We are protecting it. We are
strengthening it for those who need it the most. We are going to make
sure that your seniors in nursing homes, that pregnant women, children,
and people with disabilities have Medicaid in the future. We are
fiscally making Medicaid more sound.
You know, it is only in Washington, DC, that you increase spending at
a rate faster than inflation and you call it a cut. So we are
increasing spending on this legislation. We are increasing funding for
Medicaid. We are preserving and protecting it for those who need it the
most.
I urge everyone to vote no on this amendment.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 335 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Motion to Commit

Mr. COONS. I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Coons] moves to commit the
bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to
report back forthwith.

Mr. COONS. I ask for the reading of the motion to be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Mr. Coons moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would remove provisions stripping individuals in the
United States of the Federal benefits to which they are
entitled, by methods including but not limited to the
creation of new administrative burdens and paperwork
requirements.

Mr. COONS. Colleagues, the ugly truth about this so-called Big
Beautiful Bill is that it will kick 17 million Americans off their
healthcare. This bill cuts almost $1 trillion from Medicaid and other
healthcare programs by tying people up in redtape.
Republicans will tell you they are trying to improve Medicaid, but
the truth is, they are not. It is cruel and dishonest to bury parents,
kids, and seniors in paperwork and then blame them when they lose their
healthcare, all to further rig our Tax Code for the very wealthiest.
This week, I met with 30 nurses from Delaware. Their patients
couldn't come to DC, so they did. They care for seniors and newborns,
families, and the disabled. And their ask to us: Don't take healthcare
away from tens of thousands of Delawareans and millions of Americans.
Colleagues, support this Coons amendment to eliminate cruel and
unnecessary redtape and allow Americans to keep the healthcare they
need and deserve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

[[Page S4045]]

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, as I look at this, the Senator's motion
is on work requirements. Back home, we had a saying for people that had
an aversion to work. They called it an allergy to work.
My question is, don't you think a job brings value, that it brings
dignity? Don't you think a job brings purpose and meaning to life? We
have 7 million healthy American men across our country of working age
that aren't working right now. Yes, we want to encourage people to go
back to work.
Our bill, as you point out, preserves and protects it for those
groups. It makes it financially stronger so we can protect and
strengthen it for seniors in nursing homes, for people with
disabilities, for pregnant women, and for children. Let's protect
Medicaid for those who need it the most.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this. I will never apologize for encouraging
people to go to work.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Lummis). The question occurs on agreeing
to the motion.
Mr. COONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 336 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--52

Order of Procedure

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments,
motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number,
with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendments or motions: No. 1, Lujan motion to commit; No. 2, Reed
motion to commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Motion to Commit

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Lujan] moves to commit the
bill, H.R. 1, to the Committee on Finance with instructions
to report back forthwith.

The motion is as follows:

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) strike all provisions relating to the supplemental
nutrition assistance program in order--
(A) to maintain the 50-year bipartisan commitment to ensure
that low income children, adults, and seniors get the help
they need to afford food, regardless of where they live;
(B) to prevent extreme cuts that will take food assistance
away from millions of people already struggling to afford the
high cost of groceries, including families with children,
workers, veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, and
people with chronic health conditions;
(C) to protect State governments from being saddled with a
massive unfunded mandate;
(D) to ensure that farmers and small business owners who
rely on the purchasing power of funds from the supplemental
nutrition assistance program are not impacted; and
(E) to work toward a bipartisan farm bill.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, recently, a Republican colleague said
regarding this bill's SNAP cuts:

If we don't watch out, people are going to get hurt.

He is right--people are going to get hurt.
For the past 50 years, the United States of America has maintained a
bipartisan promise to feed our children, our veterans, our seniors, and
our working families. This bill betrays that promise. It cuts more than
$1 trillion from Medicaid and SNAP--cuts that will harm all of our
constituents.
With this motion, I am offering my colleagues the opportunity to step
away from these devastating cuts, to show our fellow Americans that in
this country we care for our friends, families, and neighbors who need
support.
I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can agree that this
is a promise worth keeping.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion raised
by my colleague from New Mexico.
The agriculture title of this bill takes a practical approach to
improve SNAP by reducing waste, enhancing accountability, and
encouraging recipients to move toward self-reliance through work and
training.
SNAP spending has nearly doubled since 2018, putting this vital
program on an unsustainable path, wrought with mismanagement and waste.
This program has devolved into viewing ``success'' as enrolling more
individuals to be dependent on government assistance. SNAP is long
overdue for change.
This motion would jeopardize the ability for the Senate to meet its
reconciliation instructions and deliver the President's agenda to the
American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Motion

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 337 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--51

Motion to Commit

Mr. REED. Madam President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] moves to commit
the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to
report back forthwith.

[[Page S4046]]

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask that further reading of the motion
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:

Mr. Reed moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) would eliminate any provisions that change State
provider taxes; and
(3) would eliminate any provisions that would lead to any
nursing home closures.

Mr. REED. Madam President, Medicaid is a lifeline for seniors. More
than 7 million seniors get care through Medicaid and in two in three
nursing homes, residents pay for that care with Medicaid.
The bill we are voting on today takes away key revenue sources from
States and nursing homes. Brown University's School of Public Health
has estimated that 579 nursing homes nationwide would be at risk of
closing because of this bill. Even if nursing homes do not close, they
will have to reduce their beds.
This motion would simply prevent any cuts in Medicaid that could lead
to nursing home closures, something I believe we all can agree on, and
I would urge my colleagues to support this motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, Republicans are restoring integrity to
the Medicaid Program by closing loopholes and preventing States from
exploiting Medicaid Federal match rates. States' provider taxes for
nursing homes and immediate-care facilities are not phased down under
this bill.
Additionally, the bill repeals the harmful Biden administration's
nursing home staffing rule that would have forced the closure of
nursing homes and long-term care facilities.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Reed
motion to commit.
Mr. REED. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 338 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--52

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

Order of Business

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments,
motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number,
with no amendments in order prior to the vote in relation to the
amendment or motions; and that is Ossoff No. 2696.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia.

Amendment No. 2696 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. OSSOFF. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2696 and ask
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Ossoff] proposes an amendment
numbered 2696 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the
enhanced premium tax credits and increase the individual tax rate for
taxpayers with income over $10,000,000)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. _____. EXTENSION OF ENHANCED PREMIUM TAX CREDITS.

(a) In General.--Section 36B(b)(3)(A)(iii) is amended--
(1) by striking ``, and before January 1, 2026'', and
(2) by striking ``2021 through 2025'' in the heading and
inserting ``years after 2020''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2025.

SEC. _____. 39.6 PERCENT RATE BRACKET.

(a) In General.--Section 1(j)(2) is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G) and by
inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) 39.6 percent rate bracket.--Notwithstanding
subparagraphs (A) through (E), in prescribing the tables
under this subsection for purposes of paragraph (3)(B)--
``(i) the excess of taxable income over $10,000,000
($5,000,000, in the case of married individuals filing
separate returns), if any, shall be taxed at a rate of 39.6
percent, and
``(ii) paragraph (3)(B)(i) shall be applied with respect to
such $10,000,000 and $5,000,000 amounts by substituting
`2024' for `2017'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2025.

Mr. OSSOFF. Madam President, instead of adding trillions to the debt
in tax cuts to the rich while destroying Medicaid and renewable energy,
I propose we help our constituents afford health insurance.
If we allow Affordable Care Act benefits to expire, as this bill
would, more than a million Georgians will pay more for health insurance
next year. A family of four in Clayton County making $65,000 a year,
that is a $2,600 increase in the cost of health insurance; Dougherty
County, $2,200; Chattahoochee County, $2,300; Augusta-Richmond County,
$2,600; Liberty County, $2,600; Macon-Bibb County, $2,700.
The AJC, our paper, reports 300,000 Georgians would lose insurance
altogether. And that is on top of the cuts to Medicaid and hospitals.
A vote against this amendment is a vote to gut the Affordable Care
Act and raise health insurance premiums. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, this amendment would
disproportionately hit our successful job creators throughout the
country, harming workers, consumers, and local economies. That result
runs directly contrary to the central themes of this bill: preventing a
more than $4 trillion tax hike on all Americans, making permanent the
Trump tax cuts, which proportionately benefit the middle class the
most.
But despite Democrats' rhetoric, they are conflating two separate
issues. Ensuring healthcare affordability and access requires
thoughtful, deliberative, and real solutions.
Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle enacted
costly and uncapped enhanced premium tax credits that use taxpayer
dollars to mask underlying issues in the ACA market, such as declining
value and fraudulent enrollment.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and instead work to
reform the underlying issues in the market that drive costs for
patients and families.

Point of Order

Madam President, the pending amendment, No. 2696, would cause the
underlying legislation to exceed the Finance Committee's section 302(a)
allocation of new budget authority and outliers; therefore, I raise a
point of order against this measure pursuant to section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. OSSOFF. How much time do I have remaining?

[[Page S4047]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 seconds.
Mr. OSSOFF. A vote against this amendment will repeal the Affordable
Care Act benefits for your constituents and raise their healthcare
premium.

Motion To Waive

And pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
I move to waive section 302(f) of that act for purposes of this
amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 339 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

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

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for the following Senator to be recognized to offer amendments,
motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number,
with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendments or motions: Blunt Rochester--motion to commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware.

Motion to Commit

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Ms. Blunt Rochester] moves to
commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance, with instructions
to report back forthwith.

The motion is as follows:

Ms. Blunt Rochester moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to
report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting
any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes
that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) would strike any provision limiting Medicaid State-
directed payments; and
(3) would preserve access to hospital labor and delivery
units to protect the 40 percent of births nationwide and
nearly 50 percent of births in rural communities that are
financed by Medicaid.

Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, in one of the richest countries
in the world, we have maternal and infant mortality crises. In fact, we
have the highest maternal mortality rate among wealthy nations.
Today, Medicaid is the single largest payer of maternity care in the
United States, covering 40 percent of births nationwide and nearly half
of all births in our rural communities. Obstetric units, particularly
in rural hospitals, are closing at alarming rates--actually creating
maternity deserts in this country. And a reason why? Low Medicaid
hospital rates.
To be blunt, now is not the time to be slashing the Medicaid program.
My amendment would stop cuts to Medicaid used for vital hospital
services, especially for labor and delivery rooms.
Leader Thune said it himself earlier today, that Medicaid should be
for pregnant moms.
So, my colleagues, we have a choice. Do we stand for billionaires or
do we stand up for moms and babies?
For Democrats, the choice is clear, and I urge my Republican
colleagues to vote yes on the motion to support families over
billionaires.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion to Commit

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 340 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--52

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

Order of Business

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for the following Senator to be recognized to offer amendments,
motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number,
with no amendments to be in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendment or the motions: Warren, No. 2414.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 2414 to Amendment No. 2360

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2414 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Ms. Warren] proposes an
amendment numbered 2414 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the reduction in the funding cap for the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection)

Strike section 30001.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
is the financial watchdog to keep people from getting cheated on credit
cards and mortgages and Venmo and payday loans and a zillion other
transactions. When this financial cop can't do its job, there is no one
else in the Federal Government to pick up the slack.
The CFPB has returned over $21 billion to more than 205 million
Americans who were cheated by big banks

[[Page S4048]]

and giant corporations. That is why this Agency is popular across the
country.
But, from the beginning, Republicans in Congress have been trying to
kill it, and now they want to slash the CFPB's modest funding cap
almost in half--not to save working people money but to make it easier
for corporations to trick and trap millions of people. Scammers love
this Republican move.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes to support the CFPB, the little
Agency that fights for all Americans, and I reserve the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
Section 30001 is purely budgetary and changes the CFPB's funding cap
from 12 percent to 6.5 percent. It would provide the Agency with ample
funding to perform its statutory mandate. The funding available to the
Agency will grow each year as it is adjusted for inflation.
There is nothing more budgetary than Congress deciding the funding
level of an Agency. I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, the pending amendment
numbered 2414 would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the
Banking Committee section 302(a) allocation of the new budget authority
and outlays; therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure
pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 302(f) of
that act for the purposes of the pending amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 341 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

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

Order of Business

Amendment No. 2705 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2705, and I ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment
numbered 2705 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To reduce the FMAP for the Medicaid expansion to 80 percent
in expansion States that provide State-funded coverage to aliens who
are not qualified aliens and who are have been charged with or
convicted of certain acts)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. EXPANSION FMAP FOR CERTAIN STATES PROVIDING
PAYMENTS FOR HEALTH CARE FURNISHED TO CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Section 1905 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (y)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(E), by inserting ``(or, for calendar
quarters beginning on or after October 1, 2027, in the case
such State is a specified State with respect to such calendar
quarter, 80 percent)'' after ``thereafter''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) Specified state.--The term `specified State' means,
with respect to a quarter, a State that--
``(i) provides any form of financial assistance from a
State general fund during such quarter, in whole or in part,
whether or not made under a State plan (or waiver of such
plan) under this title or under another program established
by the State, to or on behalf of an alien who is not a
qualified alien and has been charged with, or convicted of,
an act described in subparagraph (D), for the purchasing of
health insurance coverage (as defined in section 2791(b)(1)
of the Public Health Service Act) for any such alien; or
``(ii) provides any form of comprehensive health benefits
coverage, except such coverage required by Federal law,
during such quarter, whether or not under a State plan (or
waiver of such plan) under this title or under another
program established by the State, and regardless of the
source of funding for such coverage, to any such alien.
``(D) Acts described.--For purposes of subparagraph (C)(i),
an act described in this subparagraph is any of the
following:
``(i) A sex offense (as defined in section 111 of the Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act (34 U.S.C.
20911)).
``(ii) A crime involving severe forms of trafficking in
persons (as defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102)).
``(iii) A crime of domestic violence (as defined in section
40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C.
12291(a))).
``(iv) A crime of child abuse and neglect (as defined in
section 3 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(Public Law 93-247; 42 U.S.C. 5101 note)).
``(v) Murder, manslaughter, or an attempt to commit murder
or manslaughter (within the meanings of such terms in
sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of title 18, United States
Code).
``(vi) A crime involving receipt, distribution, or
possession of a visual depiction of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct (within the meanings of such terms
in section 2252 of title 18, United States Code).
``(E) Immigration terms.--
``(i) Alien.--The term `alien' has the meaning given such
term in section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
``(ii) Qualified alien.--The term `qualified alien' has the
meaning given such term in section 431 of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996, except that the references to `(in the opinion of the
agency providing such benefits)' in subsection (c) of such
section 431 shall be treated as references to `(in the
opinion of the State in which such comprehensive health
benefits coverage or such financial assistance is provided,
as applicable)'.''; and
(2) in subsection (z)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``for such year'' and
inserting ``for such quarter''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(i)--
(i) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking
``for a year'' and inserting ``for a calendar quarter in a
year''; and
(ii) in subclause (II), by striking ``for the year'' and
inserting ``for the quarter for the State''.
(b) Repeal.--Section 71110 of this Act is repealed, and the
Social Security Act shall be applied as if the amendments
made by such section had not been enacted.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, American tax dollars should not be used to
fund healthcare for illegal immigrants. Border Patrol talks about push
factors and pull factors. One of the pull factors

[[Page S4049]]

for illegal immigration is the knowledge that people will be able to
receive various benefits once they make it into the country.
We need legal immigration, which has been one of the greatest gifts
to our country we have ever had. Illegal immigration has been an
unmitigated disaster. But here the problem is that States are using
their Medicaid funds to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens. We don't
want our safeguard for our seniors and most vulnerable individuals to
be dissipated on behalf of people who should not be here in the United
States in the first place. It is only common sense. We should be able
to agree on reducing Federal funding for States that provide Medicaid
to criminal aliens convicted or charged with sex offenses, human
trafficking, domestic or child abuse, murder or manslaughter, or child
pornography.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
The Senator from Oregon.

Point of Order

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order. The amendment
violates the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Once again, Republicans have chosen the comforting embrace of
partisan politics, but here are a few facts to cut through the noise:
Zero Federal dollars are spent on health coverage. Second, this policy
dictates how States spent their own funds. What happened to States'
rights? Third, this policy violates ``innocent until proven guilty''
because it even talks about those charged with a crime. But most
importantly, what this amendment says is that if one person, despite
State law, through a bureaucratic mistake is receiving funds, then the
whole State pays a price and has their rate on expanded Medicaid
changed from 90 percent to 80 percent.
This is a backdoor for 41 States--which includes the majority of
Republican States--to reduce the Federal mandate from 90 percent to 80
percent, with huge, huge impact on the coverage of individuals across
this country.
Haven't we done enough damage already to the fundamental principle of
healthcare without this collective punishment of American citizens by
reducing the State funding from 90 percent to 80 percent?
I renew my point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Motion to Waive

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive and ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.

Vote on Motion

The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 342 Leg.]

YEAS--56

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

NAYS--44

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). On this vote, the yeas are 56,
the nays are 44.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment falls.
The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 2446 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2446 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an
amendment, for himself and others, numbered 2446 to amendment
No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prevent cryptocurrency corruption)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. PREVENTING CRYPTOCURRENCY CORRUPTION.

(a) In General.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
(A) the term ``covered cryptocurrency'' means any
cryptocurrency, meme coin, token, non-fungible token, payment
stablecoin, or other digital asset that is sold for
remuneration;
(B) the term ``covered former special Government employee''
means an individual who--
(i) served as a special Government employee associated with
the Executive Office of the President on or after January 1,
2024; and
(ii) ceased to serve as a special Government employee
associated with the Executive Office of the President during
the period beginning on January 2, 2024 and ending on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act;
(C) the term ``covered individual'' means--
(i) the President;
(ii) the Vice President;
(iii) a Member of Congress;
(iv) an individual appointed to a Senate-confirmed
position;
(v) a special Government employee associated with the
Executive Office of the President; or
(vi) a covered former special Government employee;
(D) the term ``directly'' means by virtue of the ownership
or beneficial interest of a covered individual, or the spouse
or child of a covered individual, in an issuer of a covered
cryptocurrency;
(E) the term ``indirectly'' means by virtue of the
financial interest of a covered individual, or the spouse or
child of a covered individual, in a business entity,
partnership interest, company, investment fund, trust, or
other third party in which the covered individual, or the
spouse or child of a covered individual, has an ownership or
beneficial interest;
(F) the term ``Member of Congress'' has the meaning given
that term in section 13101 of title 5, United States Code;
(G) the term ``payment stablecoin''--
(i) means a digital asset--

(I) that is, or is designed to be, used as a means of
payment or settlement; and
(II) the issuer of which--

(aa) is obligated to convert, redeem, or repurchase for a
fixed amount of monetary value, not including a digital asset
denominated in a fixed amount of monetary value; and
(bb) represents that such issuer will maintain, or create
the reasonable expectation that it will maintain, a stable
value relative to the value of a fixed amount of monetary
value; and
(ii) does not include a digital asset that--

(I) is a national currency;
(II) is a deposit (as defined in section 3 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)), including a deposit
recorded using distributed ledger technology; or
(III) is a security, as defined in section 2 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b), section 3 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c), or section 2
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2);

(H) the term ``promote'' includes the use of the name and
likeness of a covered individual in any marketing materials,
including in the title of the covered cryptocurrency; and
(I) the term ``special Government employee'' has the
meaning given the term in section 202(a) of title 18, United
States Code.
(2) Prohibition.--
(A) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any covered
individual described in clauses (i) through (v) of paragraph
(1)(C), or any spouse or child of any such covered
individual, to directly or indirectly own, control, promote
in exchange for anything of value, or affiliate with any
issuer of a covered cryptocurrency or any entity that
provides custodial or safekeeping services for covered
cryptocurrencies.
(B) Covered former special government employees.--It shall
be unlawful for any covered former special Government
employee, or any spouse or child of a covered special
Government employee, to directly or indirectly own, control,
promote in exchange for anything of value, or affiliate with
any issuer of a covered cryptocurrency or any entity that
provides custodial or safekeeping services for covered
cryptocurrencies during the 1-year period beginning on the
last day

[[Page S4050]]

of service of the covered former special Government employee
as a special Government employee associated with the
Executive Office of the President.
(3) Transition.--Any individual in violation of
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) on the date of
enactment of this Act shall, not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, come into compliance with the
prohibition under that paragraph.
(4) Enforcement.--
(A) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, a violation of
paragraph (2) shall be punishable by not more than 5 years in
prison and fines of not more than 3 times the monetary value
of any earnings related to the violation.
(B) Not an official act.--A violation of paragraph (2)(A)
shall not be deemed an official act if committed by any
covered individual described in clauses (i) through (v) of
paragraph (1)(C) who is in office at the time of the
violation.
(C) Statute of limitations.--No person shall be prosecuted,
tried, or punished for any offense under this subsection
unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the
information for such offense is instituted, not later than 15
years after the date on which the offense was committed.
(b) Financial Disclosure Reports.--Section 13104(b) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Disclosure relating to covered cryptocurrency
involvement.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Covered cryptocurrency.--The term `covered
cryptocurrency' means any cryptocurrency, meme coin, token,
non-fungible token, payment stablecoin, or other digital
asset that is sold for remuneration.
``(ii) Directly.--The term `directly' means by virtue of
the ownership or beneficial interest of a reporting
individual, or the spouse or child of a reporting individual,
in a covered cryptocurrency issuer.
``(iii) Indirectly.--The term `indirectly' means by virtue
of the financial interest of a reporting individual, or the
spouse or child of a reporting individual, in a business
entity, partnership interest, company, investment fund,
trust, or other third party in which the reporting
individual, or the spouse or child of a reporting individual,
has an ownership or beneficial interest.
``(iv) Payment stablecoin.--The term `payment stablecoin'--

``(I) means a digital asset--

``(aa) that is, or is designed to be, used as a means of
payment or settlement; and
``(bb) the issuer of which--
``(AA) is obligated to convert, redeem, or repurchase for a
fixed amount of monetary value, not including a digital asset
denominated in a fixed amount of monetary value; and
``(BB) represents that such issuer will maintain, or create
the reasonable expectation that it will maintain, a stable
value relative to the value of a fixed amount of monetary
value; and

``(II) does not include a digital asset that--

``(aa) is a national currency;
``(bb) is a deposit (as defined in section 3 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)), including a deposit
recorded using distributed ledger technology; or
``(cc) is a security, as defined in section 2 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b), section 3 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c), or section 2
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2).
``(v) Promote.--The term `promote' includes the use of the
name and likeness of a reporting individual in any marketing
materials, including in the title of the covered
cryptocurrency.
``(B) Requirement.--Each report filed pursuant to
subsections (b) and (c) of section 13103 shall include a
statement of whether the reporting individual, or the spouse
or child of the reporting individual, as of the filing date,
directly or indirectly owns, controls, promotes in exchange
for anything of value, or affiliates with any covered
cryptocurrency issuer or any entity that provides custodial
or safekeeping services for covered cryptocurrencies.''.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this amendment is about defending the
integrity of the legislative process.
Every now and then, a new strategy creates either the appearance of a
conflict of interest or a real conflict of interest. That is the case
with elected officials who promote and/or sell cryptocoins in which
they have a personal financial stake. These digital coins cost little
to make, so the buyers know they are enriching the elected officials
who are selling them. Some people believe, therefore, that perhaps they
can influence government policy by buying these coins, enrich the
individuals who serve in government, and, therefore, change policy. In
fact, a buyer of $2 million in meme coins announced that he bought the
coins to get favorable consideration in a change in trade policy.
My friends, the sale of cryptocoins by any of us for a financial
benefit is corrupting our responsibility to govern by and for the
people. Vote aye to defend the integrity of our ``we the people''
government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the
amendment proposed by my colleague from Oregon and others.
I appreciate their concerns about ethics and transparency in
government, but this amendment would inflict serious harm on American
innovation and competitiveness. For that matter, it applies to the
adult children, directly or indirectly, of elected and nonelected
officials. It goes too far. If we had passed something like this in the
early days of the internet, we would have sent a clear message that
America is closed for business when it comes to digital innovation, and
that is what we risk doing now. That is the last thing we want to be
doing. The irony is this amendment would actually harm our government's
ability to understand and regulate digital assets effectively.
If we are serious about ethics in financial products, let's focus on
real solutions in all financial products, not just digital. I urge my
colleagues to reject this amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment
violates the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.

Motion to Waive

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 313 of that
act for the purpose of the pending amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 343 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

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

Order of Business

Amendment No. 2771 to Amendment No. 2360

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2771 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.

[[Page S4051]]

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 2771 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the provision to defund Planned Parenthood)

Strike section 71115.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my amendment is about a really important
issue that has not gotten near enough attention for how devastating it
will be for women in our country. The Republicans' bill will cut
millions of women off from birth control, cancer screenings, essential
preventive healthcare--care that they will not be able to afford
anywhere else--and it will shutter some 200 healthcare clinics in our
country and take another step toward enacting Republicans' plan for a
backdoor, nationwide abortion ban.
How does it do this? By defunding Planned Parenthood. This is a long-
sought goal of anti-choice extremists--no surprise. It is
overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people, but Republicans are
bent on ripping away any access to abortion care and happy to cut off
this lifesaving care, no matter that women may not have another place
to get the care that they can't afford or another place they can get
any care at all.
This amendment that I am offering will strip this awful provision to
defund Planned Parenthood from this bill and protect healthcare access
to the millions of patients who rely on Planned Parenthood health
centers.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I object to the Senator's motion to
strike the provision establishing a commonsense protection of taxpayer
dollars by prohibiting abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds
for 1 year.
There was a time when protecting American tax dollars from supporting
the abortion industry was an uncontroversial, nonpartisan effort that
we could all get behind, even if we held opposing views on protecting
the dignity of human life.
This provision does not target any one entity. If a medical provider
wishes to stay within the Medicaid Program, it should simply cut
elective abortion procedures from its services.

Point of Order

Mr. President, the pending amendment, No. 2771, would cause the
underlying legislation to exceed the Finance Committee's section 302(a)
allocation of new budget authority and outlays; therefore, I raise a
point of order against this measure pursuant to section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Motion to Waive

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 302(f) of
that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 344 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--51

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

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the
following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or
points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no
amendments in order prior to the vote in relation to the amendment or
motion: Blackburn, No. 2401.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Tennessee.

Amendment No. 2401 to Amendment No. 2360

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I call up my amendment No. 2401 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mrs. Blackburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 2401 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit Federal financial participation under Medicaid
and CHIP for individuals without verified citizenship, nationality, or
satisfactory immigration status)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. PROHIBITING FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION UNDER
MEDICAID AND CHIP FOR INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT
VERIFIED CITIZENSHIP, NATIONALITY, OR
SATISFACTORY IMMIGRATION STATUS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Medicaid.--Section 1903(i)(22) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)(22)) is amended--
(A) by adding ``and'' at the end;
(B) by striking ``to amounts'' and inserting "to-- ``
``(A) amounts''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) in the case that the State elects under section
1902(a)(46)(C) to provide for making medical assistance
available to an individual during--
``(i) the period in which the individual is provided the
reasonable opportunity to present satisfactory documentary
evidence of citizenship or nationality under section
1902(ee)(2)(C) or subsection (x)(4);
``(ii) the 90-day period described in section
1902(ee)(1)(B)(ii)(II); or
``(iii) the period in which the individual is provided the
reasonable opportunity to submit evidence indicating a
satisfactory immigration status under section 1137(d)(4),
amounts expended for such medical assistance, unless the
citizenship or nationality of such individual or the
satisfactory immigration status of such individual (as
applicable) is verified by the end of such period;''.
(2) CHIP.--Section 2107(e)(1)(O) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397gg(e)(1)(O)), as redesignated by section
71103(b)(1)(A), is amended by striking ``and (17)'' and
inserting ``(17), and (22)''.
(b) Eliminating State Requirement to Provide Medical
Assistance During Reasonable Opportunity Period.--
(1) Documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality.--
Section 1903(x)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b(x)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``under clauses (i) and (ii) of section
1137(d)(4)(A)'' and inserting ``under section 1137(d)(4)'';
and
(B) by inserting ``, except that the State shall not be
required to make medical assistance available to such
individual during the period in which such individual is
provided such reasonable opportunity if the State has not
elected the option under section 1902(a)(46)(C)'' before the
period at the end.
(2) Social security data match.--Section 1902(ee) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(ee)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii)--
(i) in subclause (II), by striking ``(and continues to
provide the individual with medical assistance during such
90-day period)'' and inserting ``and, if the State has
elected the option under subsection (a)(46)(C), continues to
provide the individual with medical assistance during such
90-day period''; and
(ii) in subclause (III), by inserting ``, or denies
eligibility for medical assistance under this title for such
individual, as applicable'' after ``under this title''; and

[[Page S4052]]

(B) in paragraph (2)(C)--
(i) by striking ``under clauses (i) and (ii) of section
1137(d)(4)(A)'' and inserting ``under section 1137(d)(4)'';
and
(ii) by inserting ``, except that the State shall not be
required to make medical assistance available to such
individual during the period in which such individual is
provided such reasonable opportunity if the State has not
elected the option under section 1902(a)(46)(C)'' before the
period at the end.
(3) Individuals with satisfactory immigration status.--
Section 1137(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320b-7(d)(4)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting ``(except that
such prohibition on delay, denial, reduction, or termination
of eligibility for benefits under the Medicaid program under
title XIX shall apply only if the State has elected the
option under section 1902(a)(46)(C))'' after ``has been
provided''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting ``(except that
such prohibition on delay, denial, reduction, or termination
of eligibility for benefits under the Medicaid program under
title XIX shall apply only if the State has elected the
option under section 1902(a)(46)(C))'' after ``status''.
(c) Option to Continue Providing Medical Assistance During
Reasonable Opportunity Period.--
(1) Medicaid.--Section 1902(a)(46) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(46)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by adding ``and'' at the end;
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B)(ii) the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) provide, at the option of the State, for making
medical assistance available--
``(i) to an individual described in subparagraph (B) during
the period in which such individual is provided the
reasonable opportunity to present satisfactory documentary
evidence of citizenship or nationality under subsection
(ee)(2)(C) or section 1903(x)(4), or during the 90-day period
described in subsection (ee)(1)(B)(ii)(II); or
``(ii) to an individual who is not a citizen or national of
the United States during the period in which such individual
is provided the reasonable opportunity to submit evidence
indicating a satisfactory immigration status under section
1137(d)(4);''.
(2) CHIP.--Section 2105(c)(9) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)(9)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Option to continue providing child health assistance
during reasonable opportunity period.--Section 1902(a)(46)(C)
shall apply to States under this title in the same manner as
it applies to a State under title XIX.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply beginning on October 1, 2026.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes
of debate equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, millions of vulnerable Americans--
including the disabled, elderly, and low-income children--depend on
Medicaid for vital healthcare services, but waste, fraud, and abuse are
pushing this program to the point of insolvency. According to one
estimate, there were more than $1 trillion in improper payments over
the last decade. To protect Medicaid for those who truly need it, this
corruption must end, including by removing the 1.4 million illegal
aliens who are currently exploiting the program.
My amendment would close a loophole that allows illegal aliens to
receive Medicaid coverage for up to 90 days by blocking Federal
taxpayer dollars from funding benefits for prospective beneficiaries
until their citizenship or lawful presence is verified.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Blackburn amendment penalizes innocent
people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage and they are waiting to
cut through a thicket of redtape and get healthcare. This can go on for
months and months and defies basic fairness and common sense.
The Parliamentarian has already ruled that the Federal Government, if
it does this, it would be coercive and not acceptable under the
reconciliation rule. This is a distraction from Republican attempts to
decimate Medicaid benefits.

Point of Order

And I therefore raise a point of order that the pending amendment
violates the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Motion to Waive

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 345 Leg.]

YEAS--53

NAYS--47

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). On this vote, the yeas are 53,
and the nays are 47.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments,
motions, or points of order; that amendments be reported by number,
with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendments or motions: Kaine, motion to commit; Blumenthal, motion to
commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.

Motion to Commit

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Kaine] moves to commit the
bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs with instructions to report back
forthwith.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the motion be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:

Mr. Kaine moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate
with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3
days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in
session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) include a provision prohibiting any Federal agency from
carrying out, on or after January 20, 2025, the termination
of more than 1 percent of the employees of the Federal agency
if any of the terminated employees is a veteran (referred to
in this paragraph as a ``mass termination of Federal
employees who are veterans''), unless the Federal agency
submits to Congress, not later than 60 days before carrying
out the mass termination of Federal employees who are
veterans, a report that details the positions and number of
employees proposed to be terminated and each component of the
agency that employs the employees.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, 30 percent of the Federal workforce is
veterans, compared with only 6 percent of the

[[Page S4053]]

overall workforce. The Trump administration has fired more veterans
than any administration in the history of the United States.
Derek Copeland is an example. He is a 20-year Air Force veteran who
trained bomb-sniffing dogs. He then took a job with the Department of
Agriculture to train dogs to sniff out illegal agricultural products.
He was fired 11 days before the end of his probationary year.
His termination letter said:

You have not demonstrated that your further employment at
the Agency would be in the public interest.

He said:

I gave blood, sweat and tears to this country for 20 years
to continue service to the federal government. . . . I . . .
feel like I was just thrown out like a piece of trash.

My motion hits ``pause'' on this bill and would stop mass firings of
veterans because it is wrong. I would ask my colleagues to support my
motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. SHEEHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his concern for
our veterans. I feel compelled to note that this motion alone would
stop the Big Beautiful Bill in its tracks.
I have been asking for months, where was the Democrat outrage
similarly when we laid off tens of thousands of veterans and
contractors during the COVID vaccine hesitancy pandemic? There was no
due process, and no consideration for their service was given.
Democrats are trying to nitpick and derail this bill by disguising
the fact that they are advocating for the largest tax increase in the
history of mankind--a $4 trillion tax increase. That is what they are
really advocating for.
This is also completely unnecessary. Federal law requires the Office
of Personnel Management to consider military preference in hiring
within our Federal workforce.
We have to stop using veterans as political pawns. The best thing we
can do for veterans is have a strong, capable Federal Government that
is fiscally sound.
Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, do I have any time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six seconds.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, we can stop this, and we should. President
Trump has only been in office 6 months, and he has already fired more
veterans than any President in American history.
Please vote yes.

Vote on Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Kaine
motion to commit.
Ms. BALDWIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 346 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Motion to Commit

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Blumenthal] moves to
commit the bill, H.R. 1, to the Committee on Armed Services
with instructions to report back forthwith.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Mr. Blumenthal moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate with instructions
to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting
any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes
that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would prohibit the Department of Defense from using any
funds appropriated by Congress for national security purposes
and to support the troops of the United States to accept,
retrofit, or transfer a plane given by a foreign government
for use as Air Force One during the Trump Administration.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I make this motion to commit the
reconciliation bill to the Armed Services Committee on behalf of myself
and Senator Schumer because President Trump, earlier this year,
solicited and accepted a $200 million gift from the Government of
Qatar, a Boeing 747 jet to be retrofitted supposedly for use as Air
Force One. Make no mistake, this transfer is illegal. It is a blatant
violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which prohibits
exactly this kind of foreign gift, risking undue foreign influence.
It is also abhorrently wasteful, costing taxpayers at least $1.5
billion to strip it down and install all the necessary security
systems. And it won't even be ready before the end of Trump's term. And
now we learn from the Air Force Secretary just last week that the money
will be transferred from modernization of our nuclear arsenal, the
Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Program.
It is a sacrifice of our national security. Illegal, exorbitantly
costly, dangerous to our national defense--we should stand up to this
corrupt self-dealing.
This motion, which I have worked on with Senators Schumer and Schatz,
would send the bill back to the Armed Services Committee with
instructions to add a prohibition on using funds for this
unconstitutional, wasteful self-enrichment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, this is the eighth motion to recommit that
our friends across the aisle have offered. Each one of these would
actually have the effect of ending this process and prohibiting this
bill from being passed, and that is the reason they keep offering them.
I just want to point out there is nothing in this reconciliation bill
about Presidential aircraft, the current one or any future ones.
Our colleagues have worked on the specifics, and I know my friend
from Connecticut knows this because he is a senior member of the
committee. We have specifically outlined every purpose for which the
$150 billion is to be used by the administration. And not only that, I
have received an assurance from every witness we have who has come
before the committee to become a member of this administration that
they will follow our directions, without exception.
So given the fact that there is no funding in this bill for any
Presidential aircraft and that the Department of Defense portion of
this reconciliation is accompanied by specific language as to where it
should be spent, I ask for another ``no'' vote on these dilatory
motions to commit.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in the 30 seconds I have left, let me
just respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Vote on Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S4054]]

There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 347 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Order of Business

Motion to Commit

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Gallego] moves to commit the
bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report
back forthwith.

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the motion be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:

Mr. Gallego moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to
report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting
any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes
that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
(2) would strike any provision that cuts Medicaid payments
for substance use disorder treatment; and
(3) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay
a fair share in taxes.

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a motion to strike
provisions that cut Medicaid funding for substance abuse disorder
treatments.
Families across the country are facing the heartbreaking reality of
loved ones battling substance abuse disorders. For many, Medicaid is
the only way to afford the treatment they need. Republican efforts to
cut Medicaid funding for substance abuse treatment is cruel. It hurts
those who have shown the bravery to seek help, and it undermines our
Nation's efforts to combat public health crises, such as the fentanyl
epidemic.
At the same time, this Republican bill will give the wealthiest
Americans and large corporations tax cuts and loopholes that will only
benefit the elite.
We can continue to fund substance abuse disorder treatment by finally
making corporations and the ultrawealthy pay their fair share in taxes.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion to protect those who are
seeking treatment and to finally make corporations and the ultrawealthy
pay their fair share.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, Republicans are strengthening Medicaid and
setting it on a more fiscally sustainable path by targeting waste,
fraud, and abuse.
This bill does not take Medicaid away from children, the elderly, the
disabled, or the medically frail, adults caring for children and
elderly relatives, or any recipient the program was originally designed
to help. It increases eligibility for home- and community-based
services, which will increase access to mental health or substance
abuse disorder treatments.
If this motion were adopted, it would delay a vote on this bill and
stand in the way of Republicans' efforts to prevent a $4 trillion tax
hike on working families and deliver additional tax relief to the
middle class.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Motion

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 348 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Motion to Commit

Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Ms. Hassan] moves to commit
the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with instructions
to report back forthwith.

Ms. HASSAN. I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:

Ms. Hassan moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would protect families and small businesses from cost
increases by ending the trade war with Canada.

Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, across the country, Americans of every
political stripe are urging us to come together to help bring down
painfully high costs. Instead, the President is making life even less
affordable, both with this partisan budget bill and with his decision
to launch a trade war with our ally Canada.
The President's tariffs, combined with this bill, will raise costs
for firefighters, truckdrivers, and teachers by $500, all so that the
wealthiest 0.1 percent, making over $4 million, get a $350,000
windfall.
At a time when the American people need their costs to come down, I
can

[[Page S4055]]

think of few ideas as willfully self-destructive as launching a trade
war with one of our closest allies and, in effect, imposing a national
sales tax on families and small businesses.
I urge my colleagues to listen to the great majority of Americans who
need their costs to come down and to support my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, no decision has been made about tariffs in
this bill. More importantly, none of the President's tariffs rely on
any authorities made from a prior reconciliation bill or are contingent
on this bill.
We can and should have a debate about the precise approaches,
including how best to incorporate tariff policy, but this is not the
appropriate vehicle to have a serious debate on trade.
If adopted, this motion would commit the whole bill to a delay and
stand in the way of our efforts to prevent a $4 trillion tax hike on
working families and deliver additional tax relief to the middle class.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Hassan
motion to commit.
Ms. HASSAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 349 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--52

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The motion was rejected.
(Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. LANKFORD assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Marshall). The majority leader.

Order of Procedure

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments,
motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number,
with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendments or motions and with 12 minutes of debate equally divided on
the Kennedy amendment No. 2772 between Senators Kennedy, Welch, and
Scott of South Carolina: Duckworth, motion to commit; Schiff, motion to
commit; Kennedy, No. 2772; Alsobrooks, motion to commit; Kelly, motion
to commit; Murphy, motion to commit; King, motion to commit; Padilla,
motion to commit; Bennet, motion to commit; and Collins, No. 2812.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.

Motion to Commit

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Duckworth] moves to commit
the bill, H.R. 1, to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry, with instructions to report back forthwith.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Ms. Duckworth moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is
not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would ensure that benefits provided under the
supplemental nutrition assistance program are not terminated
or reduced for--
(A) a parent or other member of a household with
responsibility for a dependent child under 18 years of age;
(B) a veteran;
(C) a homeless individual; or
(D) an individual who was in foster care and is 24 years of
age or younger.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, when House Republicans were confronted
with concerns that H.R. 1 would threaten SNAP benefits for veterans,
the Republican chairman of the House Agriculture Committee defiantly
claimed:

Our veterans are exempt from the SNAP work requirement,
which is the law . . . and we're not changing it.

Well, he spoke too soon because without a hearing, without notice,
and certainly without good cause, Senate Republicans literally stripped
away the very protection that House Republicans cited when arguing that
veterans would not be harmed by this ugly bill.
Senate Republicans are abandoning veterans, the homeless, former
foster youth, and also parents with children above the age of 13--
because we all know teenagers don't have big appetites--to be beaten
down with complex paperwork and confusing bureaucracy that has nothing
to do with helping struggling Americans find work and, rather, is
simply a cynical scheme to discourage those who served our Nation in
uniform from receiving the safety net support they are eligible for
under the law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion raised
by my colleague from Illinois.
The Agriculture title of the bill empowers individuals to pursue
work, education, training, and volunteer opportunities, equipping SNAP
recipients to eventually transition off the program through real growth
in their income.
It is reasonable to expect SNAP recipients who can work to do so,
including parents of school-age children who can work while their
children are in school. Any individual who is physically or mentally
unfit for employment continues to be exempt from the work requirement.
This motion would jeopardize the ability of the Senate to meet its
reconciliation instructions and deliver the President's agenda to the
American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Motion

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 350 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--51

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins

[[Page S4056]]

Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Motion to Commit

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mr. Schiff] moves to commit
the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I ask that the reading of the motion be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Mr. Schiff moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,
not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,
with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would ensure that no provision of the bill cuts any
food assistance benefits for families with children under the
age of 12.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, my motion is simple. It will prevent
families with kids under 12 from losing food assistance under the bill.
It is bad enough that we are borrowing money--trillions of dollars--
from our kids and grandkids to pay for tax cuts for rich people, but it
is worse still that we leave families hungry today.
Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion raised
by my colleague from California. The agricultural title of this bill
takes a practical approach to improve SNAP by reducing waste, enhancing
accountability, and encouraging recipients to move toward self-reliance
through work and training.
SNAP spending has nearly doubled since 2018, putting this vital
program on an unsustainable path, wrought with mismanagement and waste.
SNAP is long overdue for change. This program has devolved into viewing
success as enrolling more individuals to be dependent on government
assistance.
This motion would jeopardize the ability of the Senate to meet its
reconciliation instructions and deliver the President's agenda to the
American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, feeding hungry kids is
not waste, and if we have to send this bill back to committee to fix it
and bring it back so kids can get fed, we should do it.
This bill is going to take lunches out of school cafeterias. It is
going to mean hungry families. We can't pick a number like $200 billion
out of thin air and say, ``You can take that money for tax cuts,'' and
not leave a lot of American kids hungry.
Mr. President, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Vote on Motion to Commit

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 351 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Amendment No. 2772 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2772 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 2772 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of Defense Production Act of 1950 funds
without the approval of Congress)

Strike section 30004 and insert the following:

SEC. 30004. APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT.

(a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise
available, there is appropriated for fiscal year 2025, out of
amounts not otherwise appropriated, $1,000,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2027, to carry out the Defense
Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.).
(b) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the amounts
appropriated under this section may be obligated or expended
to provide financing under the Defense Production Act of 1950
unless a joint resolution approving the financing is enacted
into law.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we just spent 13 hours on motions to
commit. I am not blaming my Democratic colleagues because we had to
agree to it. But anybody with a brain above a single-cell organism
knows that a motion to commit has no chance of passing. So, basically,
we have been standing around for 13 hours. We might as well have just
been standing around sucking on our teeth.
Now, I would like to ask for order in this Chamber. At least we can
have that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let there be order, please.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in this bill, $1 billion is set aside to
be spent by September 30, 2027, to carry out the Defense Production
Act. That is it. That is all there is.
Now, I am not a big fan of government-directed industrialization.
Government-directed industrialization is when government, with its
superior instincts and unfathomable judgment, decides to pick winners
and losers in the private sector.
This business gets some money; but you, Ms. Businesswoman, you can't
have the money. I am against that for two reasons. No. 1, it is
immoral. It is unfair to people who don't get the money, the gift from
government. And, No. 2, when government does it, when it picks winners
and losers, government consistently picks losers.
Now, I was against it in the prior administration, and, just
recently, in my subcommittee, we had a hearing where the prior
administration handed out $90 billion in the last 76 days of its
administration in gifts and loans to entities in the private sector.
And I raised fresh hell.
And now we are about to do it again--a billion dollars. Now I am--and
that is all it says, a billion dollars to be spent, period.
Now, I have been told that the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary
of the Interior are going to describe, in their unfettered discretion,
who is going to get this money in the private sector, and they are both
two good men. I know both of those Secretaries; I voted for them. They
are total ballers. I love them to death. But when I am in Washington, I
live by this adage: Trust in God, but tie up your camel.
Trust in God, but tie up your camel.
This bill will say they can give these gifts and grants to whomever
they want, but Congress has to approve them.

[[Page S4057]]

Now, about--I don't know--about an hour ago, I got a call from one of
my supporters. And you know what he said to me? He said: Kennedy, for
your own good, you need to pull down this amendment. You have to pull
down this amendment. Kennedy, for your own good, you have to pull down
this amendment.
And you know what I told him? I said Scooter--I said, Scooter, there
are only two things I have to do in this world: be cool and die, and I
am not pulling down this amendment.
It wasn't right when it was done in the prior administration; it is
not right now that we are in charge. This is Congress's job, and, by
God, we ought to do it.
And I reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I support the Kennedy amendment but not for
the reasons my friend from Louisiana does.
I think that there should be some flexibility and there should be
some governmental policy that helps our industry. And I do agree that
the President should have some power. What I do not believe is that the
Congress should be powerless. And that is what we have become, ceding
our article I authority to a Chief Executive. And I don't care whether
it is a Republican or a Democrat. The most important branch is the
article I branch because we are the closest to the people.
And how is it that we have, in this bill, a billion dollars--a
billion dollars--that goes to an Executive to be spent in ways we have
no input as to how it will be spent? We have no accountability; we have
no way to tell the people we represent how this money is being spent
and why.
Mr. President, I believe that the biggest threat we have to this
democracy is the failure of this Congress to assert its authority and
accept its responsibility to make the decisions that the Constitution
says is our obligation to do, and that starts with the power of the
purse.
I support the man from Louisiana in his amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
Mr. SCHUMER. Six months.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my esteemed colleague and I--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 30 seconds, and
the Senator from South Carolina has 4 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Scooter--I mean, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues' support. I don't mean any
disrespect to anybody.
This town operates on two wrongs don't make it right, but they do
make it even. It is time that Congress have a say in how the money is
being spent. It doesn't say the money can't be spent; it just says
Congress gets to approve it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I really like my good
friend from the great State of Louisiana, and Scooter's cousin Bubba
called me recently. I got to tell you that there is no doubt in my mind
that the importance of the Defense Production Act is undeniable and
specificity is a necessary component for us to have our oversight, and
that is why this administration--unlike the last administration--has
committed to making sure that we understand how the resources in the
DPA will be spent.
We have that commitment on a quarterly basis to receive the necessary
information so that we understand, with great clarity and transparency,
how the dollars within the DPA will be spent.
But here is what we also know, that we remain reliant on China for
critical minerals. Here is what we know, that the United States of
America, the ``City on the Hill,'' remains dependent on foreign powers
for our necessary resources. We are not self-reliant in areas that
matter the most to the American people and, frankly, to America's
future.
Now, you can think of this as just hyperbole, but the fact of the
matter is clear when you look back to recent issues like COVID and PPE.
We were begging China to help the American people. We were begging
China for medicine, masks.
We cannot allow this great Nation to be dependent on other nations.
We must become more self-reliant. And in the spirit of self-reliance,
this administration--whom I will say I trust President Trump. I trust
his word to produce the results we need for this Nation to make sure
that we are self-reliant, and I trust the President to produce the
information that will satisfy my good friend Senator Kennedy.
But let me close with this. We need the DPA, and we need the funding
at the levels requested. We must make sure we always have the resources
to produce for ourselves if there is another COVID.
In the same way that we used the DPA to build levies and floodwalls
after Hurricane Katrina, we need to make sure we have the resources in
place for natural emergencies. In the same way that the DPA was used to
help protect servicemembers who were deployed overseas from IEDs, we
need the DPA.
So I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. The pending
amendment does not produce a change in outlays of revenues.

Point of Order

I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(A) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Excuse me, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Take your time.

Motion to Waive

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, sir.
Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I
move to waive the point of order, reminding the body that I am not
striking the spending--reminding the body that I am not striking the
spending. I am just asking Congress to approve it.
I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 352 Leg.]

YEAS--42

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
McConnell
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Reed
Sanders
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Welch
Wyden

NAYS--58

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Duckworth
Ernst
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagerty
Hawley
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kelly
Kim
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Markey
Marshall
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Peters
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Schatz
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Slotkin
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). On this vote, the yeas are 42,
the nays are 58.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The motion was rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
(Disturbance in the Galleries.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Motion to Commit

Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Alsobrooks] moves to commit
the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance, with
instructions.
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
motion be dispensed with.

[[Page S4058]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Ms. Alsobrooks moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to
report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting
any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes
that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would strike any provision which reduces the average
tax liability of individual taxpayers with income in excess
of $10,000,000.
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Mr. President, I want to know if my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle believe that there are some Americans who are
so wealthy that perhaps they don't need a tax break so we can save
healthcare and food for our most vulnerable constituents.
So I will kick off this dialogue by raising a commonsense idea: We
can save healthcare for millions of Americans if we strip out tax
giveaways for individuals making more than $10 million--yes or no?
President Trump claims to fight for the working class. Yet we have
before us a bill that gives tax breaks to the top 1 percent that would
be paid in cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and more--programs that serve hard-
working Americans.
So I ask, do you want community hospitals or another giant mansion
for a billionaire? Should we save healthcare and nutrition assistance
for millions of Americans by stopping giant tax giveaways of $10
million?
If my colleagues on the other side want to put their money where
their mouths are, then they will say yes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy talked about Scooter, and
Senator Scott talked about Bubba. I want to talk about Jelly Roll.
It turns out, in a committee hearing with Jelly Roll--the country
music rock singer--he grew up in Antioch, TN.
I said: Do you remember Countryside Village?
He said: Well, they call it Countryside Meadow.
I said: I used to live there.
He said: I did, too.
It is a trailer park that is still standing on Richards Road in
Nashville, TN.
Back in the late seventies and early eighties, I was living in that
trailer park, and I was living with a family in the economic bubble. I
remember back then when President Reagan came in and he offered tax
cuts that everybody characterized as tax cuts for the rich. But let me
tell you all, when we saw those tax cuts implemented, Thom Tillis and
Jelly Roll ended up finding opportunities beyond our wildest
imagination.
So it turns out that those so-called tax cuts for the rich back then
lifted me out of that situation into a high-tech career and now
standing here before you in the U.S. Senate.
This and several other amendments are amendments that are standing in
the way of other people getting lifted out of that same trailer park.
So, ladies and gentlemen on our side of the aisle and those over there,
I hope you will join us.
Shout loudly ``no.''

Vote on Motion to Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Motion to Commit

Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kelly] moves to commit the
bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the motion be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Mr. Kelly moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would strike any provision which reduces the average
tax liability of individual taxpayers with income in excess
of $100,000,000.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I don't think we are looking to take any
money out of Jelly Roll's pocket here, but giving a tax break to the
richest people and most profitable corporations is a choice, and paying
for it by kicking 17 million Americans off of their health insurance is
a choice.
None of this is set in stone. Every one of us gets a vote here--a
choice. We can help parents be able to take their kids to the doctor,
we can keep seniors in their nursing homes, or some rich guy--not Jelly
Roll--can get another private jet.
We can save healthcare for millions of Americans if we strip out tax
giveaways for individuals who are making more than $100 million a
year--yes or no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, the reality is, let's fast-forward now to
2017. I was in this Chamber when we passed the TCJA. After we passed
this, again, everybody was arguing this was all tax policy for the
rich, but we unleashed an American economy that we had not seen in our
history. In fact, it was better than the tax cuts of the Reagan era.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need to get every bit of what we did in 2017
back on the books because people are not understanding the pro-growth
nature of this tax policy.
I hope my colleagues will vote loudly yes once again--no--no once
again.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Vote on Motion

The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Motion to Commit

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Murphy] moves to commit
the bill, H.R. 1, to the Committee on Finance of the Senate
with instructions to report back forthwith.
Mr. MURPHY. I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Mr. Murphy moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would strike any provision which reduces the average
tax liability of individual taxpayers with income in excess
of $500,000,000.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, at the foundation of this bill is
something very simple: the most massive transfer of wealth from the
poor to the rich in the history of the country. That is essentially
what we are talking about here. That is locally bad policy, but, just
as importantly, it is also deeply, deeply immoral.
This bill is going to ruin people's lives. There are going to be moms
who will watch their kids go hungry because of the cuts in SNAP. People
are going to die when 17 million people lose their healthcare; and for
what? To give an average quarter-million-dollar tax cut to the
wealthiest families in America.
We have tried to convince our colleagues to throw less people off
their healthcare or to make the nutritional cuts a little bit easier to
stomach, but they won't do it. So now we are just trying to address the
other side of the immorality.
This amendment would just say: no tax cuts for people making over
$500 million a year.
If you are going to ruin people's lives by kicking them off their
healthcare or cutting their food stamps, don't make the moral injury
even worse by padding the pockets of the richest people in the
country--tax cuts for people making over $500 million a year, while you
throw 17 million people off their healthcare, yes or no?

[[Page S4059]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am guessing, while they are probably
focused a little bit less on me because I have made an announcement
this weekend, but you can already tell that this narrative is about how
we are all about the wealthy.
I have already stipulated that I have concerns with the Medicaid
bill. You all know where I am on that. But we were talking about the
tax bill, and there is nothing in this tax bill that I think falls
short of an extraordinary opportunity for economic growth that lifts up
the very people whom I grew up with. For that reason, once again, I
hope you will vote loudly no.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Motion to Commit

Mr. KING. Mr. President, first, I want to respond. We can solve this
problem and solve the problem of people in trailer parks by limiting
the tax cuts to people making $400,000 a year and less. That would cut
the cost of this bill by 60 percent. It would also obviate the
necessity of kicking 17 million people off of healthcare and thousands
and thousands of young people and people across the country from SNAP.
You can do this and give tax relief to the middle class without the
unnecessary tax relief in this bill that goes to the richest people in
our country.
So my amendment is really simple. If you think people making $1
billion a year need and deserve a tax break, and also, if you want to
give a really good ad to these guys in November of 2026, vote no on the
amendment and say that billionaires--no, not billionaires, people
earning $1 billion--need and deserve a tax break.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to call up his motion?
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Mr. King] moves to commit the bill,
H.R. 1, to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with
Instructions to report back forthwith.

Mr. KING. I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Mr. King moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would strike any provision which reduces the average
tax liability of individual taxpayers with income in excess
of $1,000,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, in truth, you can see this sort of upping
of the ante. These are the gimmicks that we play when we want to get a
show vote, especially with somebody who may be running for reelection.
We know that this isn't going to materially change things.
My friend from Maine knows where I am on healthcare, and I hope that
we get things fixed. But this exercise, by virtue of its being a voice
vote, tells you all you need to know about this process. And for that
reason, I would suggest just one more loud ``no'' vote.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Motion to Commit

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mr. Padilla] moves to commit
the bill, H.R. 1, to the Committee on Finance of the Senate
with instructions to report back forthwith.

Mr. PADILLA. I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Mr. Padilla moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to
report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting
any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes
that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would cause the bill to not increase the deficit for
the period of fiscal years 2025 through 2034, relative to the
current law baseline.
Mr. PADILLA. Colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I know that
you take great pleasure in criticizing the Federal deficit under
Democratic administrations. But the numbers don't lie. The biggest
driver of the ballooning national debt has been Republican tax cuts for
the wealthy and large corporations.
Despite the parliamentary gymnastics that are being played here, our
Republican colleagues know that this bill is adding an additional $3.5
trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Why else would they
have included a piece of the bill to raise the debt limit by $5
trillion if this bill saved money, as they claim?
So if Republicans really do want to balance the budget or reduce the
deficit, let's start by guaranteeing that this measure is at least
deficit neutral. That is exactly what this amendment would do.
I ask for your ``aye'' vote, and I reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, CBO tells us that if we adopt current
policy for taxes, we will save $507 billion. The deficit will go down
by $507 billion if we do this.
In 2012, I was here. The Bush tax cuts were going to expire in
December of 2012. President Obama sat down with Republicans, and they
came up with a way to extend those tax cuts by not passing them into
law. They called it the alternative fiscal scenario that CBO said is
based on the current policy. So ``alternative fiscal scenario'' in
Latin means current policy.
So we are doing what they did then. We are just doing it without any
help from you all because you all will never do anything to make sure
taxes go down. So we are going to make sure they go down forever.
Current policy is good tax policy. Stick with the bill you wrote. You
are going to be happy to reduce the deficit and make sure people's
taxes don't go up tomorrow, the next day, forever. It is good policy.
Current policy is good tax policy.
I am done.
Mr. PADILLA. How much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Vote on Motion

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 353 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice

[[Page S4060]]

Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Motion to Commit

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet] moves to commit the
bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with
instructions to report.

Mr. BENNET. I ask the reading of the motion be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:
Mr. Bennet moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee
on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same
back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which
the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would increase the amount and availability of the Child
Tax Credit to match levels of the expanded Child Tax Credit,
adjusted for inflation, by ensuring big corporations and the
ultra-wealthy pay a fair share.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, the legislation we are debating today
would modestly increase the size of the child tax credit while leaving
out more than 17 million children from the full credit.
America's poorest children, whose families are struggling to make
ends meet, receive nothing from this bill. Everywhere I go in Colorado,
I meet parents who are working hard--often two and three jobs--just to
keep their family's heads above water, like Americans all across this
country.
They are wrestling with the legacy of 50 years of trickle-down
economics that have benefited the wealthiest Americans while leaving
working and middle-class families behind, which this bill does again.
Today, the United States boasts one of the highest childhood poverty
rates in the industrialized world. This is a moral disgrace, but we
know how to end childhood poverty in this country.
In 2021, we expanded the child tax credit and cut childhood poverty
nearly in half and cut hunger by a quarter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, we should refuse to pass a bill that adds
millions to our debt in order to cut taxes for the wealthiest while
doing nothing for our kids. I urge my colleagues to support this
motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, Democrats contend that they want to
increase and extend the child tax credit and ensure that big
corporations and the ultrawealthy pay their fair share.
Despite the rhetoric behind these claims, I remind my colleagues that
Republicans created the child tax credit, expanded its availability,
and doubled the amount of the credit in the TCJA, which we are working
on tonight.
This bill not only makes that doubled child tax credit permanent but
also increases it, providing significant relief for families. In
addition, as a result of the TCJA cutting taxes for, overwhelmingly,
the majority of Americans, with the middle class receiving the largest
proportional benefit of these cuts, Republicans made the Tax Code more
progressive, not less. The legislation before us makes those tax
provisions permanent.
Americans deserve more than empty platitudes. They deserve meaningful
tax relief and meaningful results.

Vote on Motion

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 354 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Amendment No. 2812 to Amendment No. 2360

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2812 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment
numbered 2812 to amendment No. 2360.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply a 39.6
percent individual income tax rate, and to provide additional funding
and specify eligible providers under the Rural Health Transformation
Program)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. _____. 39.6 PERCENT INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET.

``(I) $50,000,000, in the case of married individuals
filing joint returns and surviving spouses, and
``(II) $25,000,000, in any other case,

shall be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, and
``(ii) paragraph (3)(B)(i) shall be applied with respect to
such $50,000,000 and $25,000,000 amounts by substituting
`2025' for `2017'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2025.

SEC. _____. MODIFICATIONS TO RURAL HEALTH TRANSFORMATION
PROGRAM.

(a) Additional Funding.--Section 2105(h)(1)(A) of the
Social Security Act, as added by section 71401(a), is
amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``$10,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$22,500,000,000''; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ``$10,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$22,500,000,000''.
(b) Health Care Providers.--Section 2105(h) of the Social
Security Act, as added by section 71401(a) and amended by
subsection (a), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``health care
providers,'' and inserting ``rural health facilities (as
defined in paragraph (3)(D)) or health care providers
described in paragraph (7), or'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs
(8) and (9), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) Health care providers.--The following health care
providers are described in this paragraph:
``(A) A hospital classified as a rural referral center
under section 1886(d)(5)(C).
``(B) A long-term care hospital (as defined in section
1861(ccc)).
``(C) A hospital operated by an Indian Tribe or the Indian
Health Service.
``(D) A provider of ambulance services.
``(E) A community health center.
``(F) A provider or supplier that is enrolled with a State
Medicaid plan under title XIX (or a waiver of such plan) in
accordance with subsections (a)(77) and (kk) of section 1902
(including enrolled pursuant to section 1902(a)(78) or
section 1932(d)(6)) that received funds as a rural provider
under the Phase Four distribution of the Provider Relief Fund
established in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (Public Law 116-136).
``(G) A provider or supplier that is enrolled with a State
Medicaid plan under title XIX

[[Page S4061]]

(or a waiver of such plan) in accordance with subsections
(a)(77) and (kk) of section 1902 (including enrolled pursuant
to section 1902(a)(78) or section 1932(d)(6)) that received
funds under section 1150C.
``(H) A hospital that--
``(i) is located in an urban area (as defined in section
1886(d)(2)(D)); and
``(ii) operates 1 or more approved medical residency
training program under section 1886(h).
``(I) A not-for-profit hospital that is located in an urban
area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D)).
``(J) A hospital described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(ii).
``(K) A hospital described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v).
``(L) A hospital that is defined or deemed to be a
disproportionate share hospital for purposes of receiving a
payment adjustment under section 1923 for the most recent
fiscal year for which such payment adjustments are made.
``(M) A facility that provides inpatient or outpatient
rehabilitation services that is enrolled with a State
Medicaid plan under title XIX (or a waiver of such plan) in
accordance with subsections (a)(77) and (kk) of section 1902
(including enrolled pursuant to section 1902(a)(78) or
section 1932(d)(6)).
``(N) A facility that provides inpatient or outpatient
psychiatric services (including an inpatient psychiatric
hospital for individuals under age 21 (as described in
section 1905(h)) or an institution for mental diseases
providing medical assistance under a State Medicaid plan
under title XIX (or a waiver of such plan) to individuals 65
years of age or older) that is enrolled with a State Medicaid
plan under title XIX (or a waiver of such plan) in accordance
with subsections (a)(77) and (kk) of section 1902 (including
enrolled pursuant to section 1902(a)(78) or section
1932(d)(6)).
``(O) A facility described in section 1905(d).
``(P) A facility that provides for individuals with
intellectual or developmental disabilities--
``(i) services described in section 433.56(a)(4) of title
42, Code of Federal Regulations; or
``(ii) home and community-based services authorized under
subsections (b), (c), (i), (j), or (k) of section 1915,
section 1115, or a State plan amendment under title XIX that
supports individuals with intellectual or developmental
disabilities who are eligible for such services through
meeting an institutional level of care.
``(Q) A skilled nursing facility (as defined in section
1819(a)).
``(R) A nursing facility (as defined in section 1919(a)).
``(S) An assisted living or residential care facility that
is enrolled with a State Medicaid plan under title XIX (or a
waiver of such plan) in accordance with subsections (a)(77)
and (kk) of section 1902 (including enrolled pursuant to
section 1902(a)(78) or section 1932(d)(6)).
``(T) A provider of home health care services.
``(U) A provider of hospice care.
``(V) An institution for mental diseases (as defined in
section 1905(i)).
``(W) A subsection (d) hospital (as defined in paragraph
(1)(B) of section 1886(d)) that receives or is eligible to
receive disproportionate share hospital payments under
paragraph (5)(F) of such section.
``(X) A hospital participating in the Rural Community
Hospital (RCH) demonstration program under section 410A of
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003.
``(Y) A community behavioral health provider who relies
heavily on payments provided under a State Medicaid plan
under title XIX or a waiver of such plan.''.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, my amendment would increase funding for
the Rural Healthcare Provider Fund to $50 billion and expand the list
of eligible providers to include not only rural hospitals but also
community health centers, nursing homes, ambulance services, skilled
nursing facilities, and others.
Rural providers, especially our rural hospitals and nursing homes,
are under great financial strain right now with many having recently
closed and others being at risk of closing.
When these facilities close their doors, the people they serve are
often left behind without access to healthcare. This amendment would
help keep them open and caring for those who live in these rural
communities.
The additional funding is fully offset through a modest increase in
the top marginal tax rate equal to the pre-2017 rate for individuals
with income of about $25 million and married couples with income of
about $50 million.
I urge support for this amendment to provide the additional funding
for rural and Medicaid providers who desperately need it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, here is how flawed this plan
is. The danger Senate Republicans are causing for rural hospitals is so
great, Republicans have had to create a rural hospital relief fund so
they can look like they are fixing the problem they are causing.
It is a bandaid on an amputation. It provides just a tiny fraction of
the nearly $1 trillion in cuts the bill makes to Medicaid. It would be
much more logical to simply not cut $1 trillion from Medicaid in the
first place.
This amendment doubles down on that flawed plan that is going to set
rural hospitals adrift.
I urge opposition to the amendment.
I yield the floor.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending measure
violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Motion to Waive

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 22, nays 78, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 355 Leg.]

YEAS--22

Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Curtis
Fischer
Graham
Hawley
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Kennedy
King
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Ossoff
Sullivan
Warner
Warnock
Wicker
Young

NAYS--78

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Banks
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Cantwell
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Johnson
Justice
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Markey
McCormick
Merkley
Moody
Mullin
Murphy
Murray
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). On this vote, the yeas are 22,
the nays are 78.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.

Amendment No. 2775 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2775 on behalf of
Senator Kennedy and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes an amendment numbered 2775 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a
deduction for expenses of home educators)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. _____. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELIGIBLE
EDUCATORS.

(a) Increase in Limitation for Eligible Educators.--
(1) In general.--Section 62(a)(2)(D) is amended--
(A) by striking ``elementary and secondary school
teachers'' in the heading and inserting ``eligible
educators'', and
(B) by striking ``$250'' and inserting ``$600''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 62(d)(3) is amended--
(A) by striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2025'',
(B) by striking ``$250'' and inserting ``$600'', and
(C) by striking ``calendar year 2014'' and inserting
``calendar year 2024''.
(b) Application to Home Educators.--
(1) Deduction allowed.--
(A) In general.--Part VII of subchapter A of chapter 1, as
amended by sections 70201

[[Page S4062]]

and 70202, is further amended by redesignating section 226 as
section 227 and by inserting after section 225 the following
new section:

``SEC. 226. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF HOME EDUCATORS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of an eligible home
educator, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount
equal to the expenses paid or incurred by the eligible home
educator--
``(1) by reason of the participation of the eligible home
educator in courses related to--
``(A) the curriculum in which the eligible home educator
provides instruction, or
``(B) such eligible educator's children, and
``(2) in connection with books, supplies (other than
nonathletic supplies for courses of instruction in health or
physical education), computer equipment (including related
software and services) and other equipment, and supplementary
materials used by the eligible home educator at the location
where the educator teaches such individual's children.
``(b) Limitation.--The amount allowed as a deduction under
this section for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount
in effect under section 62(a)(2)(D).
``(c) Eligible Home Educator.--For purposes of this
section, the term `eligible home educator' means any
individual who teaches such individual's children at a home
school which--
``(1) provides elementary or secondary education
(kindergarten through grade 12), as determined under State
law, and
``(2) is treated as a home school or a private school under
State law.''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for part VII
of subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by sections 70201
and 70202, is further amended by redesignating the item
relating to section 226 as relating to section 227 and by
inserting after the item relating to section 225 the
following new item:
``Sec. 226. Deduction for certain expenses of home educators.''.
(2) Deduction allowed in computing adjusted gross income.--
Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by inserting after paragraph (21) the following new
paragraph:
``(22) Expenses of home educators.--The deduction allowed
by section 226.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2024.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as you know, as we all know, many of our
teachers in America come out-of-pocket to pay for school supplies.
In 2002, 23 years ago, we allowed teachers to deduct $250 when they
come out-of-pocket. My amendment would raise that deduction from $250
to $600. Teachers, right now, spend an average of $650 out of their own
pockets, so we would allow them to deduct that instead of the amount we
set in 2002.
I ask a favorable consideration of my amendment. This will just let
teachers break even for coming out-of-pocket.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Point of Order

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I wouldn't have much dispute for
subsidizing the out-of-pocket expenses of our public school teachers.
When I was a child, my dad, the mechanic, said: Son, because we are so
fortunate to live in America, if you go through the doors of that
public school and you study hard, you can do just about anything.
So I am certainly a lifetime fan of public education.
But in addition to expanding this for public school teachers, it has
a new policy of expanding it to homeschool teachers. Well, that is
quite a new policy to put into a reconciliation bill. It really should
be in the Education Committee and debated and bring people to bear.
I am not immediately struck that that is a great idea, but certainly,
as a new policy, it should go through committee. For that reason--for
that reason--I think I will do a point of order on this particular
amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates
section 4106 of the fiscal year 2018 Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res.
71, of the 115th Congress, known as the Senate pay-as-you-go point of
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have any time left, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.

Motion to Waive

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and on behalf of all of the teachers
in America and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions,
I move, on behalf of all the teachers in America, to waive all
applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for
purposes of the pending amendment--and, once again, on behalf of our
teachers--and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 356 Leg.]

YEAS--54

NAYS--46

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are
46.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The majority leader.

Order of Business

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments,
motions or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number,
with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the
amendments or motions.
Wyden, motion to commit; Hirono, No. 2382; Warnock, motion to commit;
Lee, No. 2745; Kim, No. 2817; Ernst, No. 2372; Sanders, No. 2435, with
60 affirmative votes required.

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

On page S4062, June 30, 2025, third column, the following
appears: Wyden, motion to commit; Hirono, No. 2382; Warner, motion
to commit; Lee, No. 2745; Kim, No. 2817; Ernst, No. 2372; Sanders,
No. 2435, with 60 affirmative votes required.

The online Record has been corrected to read: Wyden, motion to
commit; Hirono, No. 2382; Warnock, motion to commit; Lee, No.
2745; Kim, No. 2817; Ernst, No. 2372; Sanders, No. 2435, with 60
affirmative votes required.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would suggest to my colleagues that we
get this vote started and that, when we get it, we are going to start
voting in our seats, and we are going to start doing 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Motion to Commit

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] moves to commit the
bill to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with
instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion is as follows:

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, Republicans started out
planning to repeal the tax credits that Finance Democrats wrote for
wind and solar energy. Then it got a whole lot worse.

[[Page S4063]]

The Republican plan actually taxes clean energy. Taxes raise energy
bills. The Republican plan will raise your energy bills. If this
passes, it is a death sentence for the wind and solar industries and
hundreds of thousands of American jobs. It is a surrender to China on
clean energy manufacturing.
Leader Schumer and my colleagues on our side all support this effort.
If you are for all-of-the-above energy, something I have heard my
Republican colleagues say, you will support my motion to commit the
bill back to the Finance Committee to strike the cuts to clean energy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I respect my friend and colleague from
Oregon, but I disagree with every word he just uttered including
``but,'' ``and,'' and ``the.''
Look, the energy and natural resources title of this bill is one of
the most consequential pieces of energy legislation we have had in
decades. It increases production on Federal lands. It eliminates
wasteful spending at both the Interior and Energy Departments that have
prioritized intermittent, nonreliable, nonbaseload sources of power,
ultimately driving up the cost of living and the cost of power.
We can and do reduce energy prices by increasing development of our
vast energy natural resources.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Vote on Motion to Commit

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 357 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Amendment No. 2382 to Amendment No. 2360

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2382 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Ms. Hirono], for herself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 2382 to amendment No.
2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To eliminate a program of qualified elementary and secondary
education scholarships for public, private, or religious schools)

Strike section 70411.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, nearly 90 percent of K through 12 students
attend public schools. Yet Republicans are pushing a plan in this bill
to undermine support for public schools through the first-ever
nationwide Public-Private School Voucher Program.
Republicans claim vouchers are about expanding school choice, but
evidence shows these kinds of programs do little to meaningfully
increase choice for families, especially low-income families and those
who live in rural communities.
When it comes down to it, this plan does not help students. It does
not promote choice. It does not support public schools. We should be
investing in public education for all Americans, not diverting tax
dollars to private schools. That is why my amendment with Senator Van
Hollen would strip this provision from this bill.
Stand up for our Nation's students, teachers, and families by
rejecting this provision and supporting our amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. There are many important elements to One Big Beautiful
Bill, but none over time is likely to have as big an impact as this
specific provision that the Democrats are trying to strike tonight.
Across America, millions of children, especially low-income, African-
American, and Hispanic children are trapped in failing schools. They
face crime and violence and despair. Without the ability to learn and
prosper, they are denied a fair shot at the American dream.
School choice is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. Every
child, regardless of race or wealth or ethnicity, deserves access to an
excellent education. This tax credit provision will unleash billions of
dollars every single year for scholarships for kids to attend the K
through 12 school of their choice.
Sadly, every Democrat in this body will oppose these scholarships
because they are more beholden to teacher union bosses than they are
dedicated to fighting for kids.
Dr. King's dream will take a major step forward tonight as every kid
in America will have a chance at an excellent education.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, do I have time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.

Vote on Amendment No. 2382

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the adoption of the
amendment.
Ms. HIRONO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 358 Leg.]

YEAS--50

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

NAYS--50

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 2382) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Motion to Commit

Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Warnock] moves to commit the
bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with instructions.

Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the motion be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4064]]

The motion is as follows:
Mr. Warnock moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to
report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting
any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes
that--
(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
(2) would protect clean energy manufacturing jobs in the
United States.
Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I rise to protect pro-business, pro-
worker tax credits that are creating hundreds of thousands of American
clean energy manufacturing jobs, many of which don't require a college
degree.
Put simply, these tax credits are working. I know firsthand because,
in Georgia, businesses invested $4.50 for every dollar we spent in tax
credits. They helped create 42,000 new manufacturing and construction
jobs, many in rural parts of our State that are too often left behind
by Washington politicians. Those 42,000 Georgia jobs and hundreds of
thousands of jobs nationwide are at risk if Republicans have their way
and roll back these tax credits. That is why North America's building
trade unions--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WARNOCK. Really?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been a minute and 10 seconds.
Mr. WARNOCK. Those 42,000 Georgia jobs and hundreds of thousands of
jobs nationwide are at risk. That is why North America's building trade
unions call this bill the biggest job-killing bill in the history of
this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote for America's workers and vote yes on my
motion to commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, energy manufacturing jobs survive and thrive
when there is less Federal intrusion, not more, to my friend and
colleague from Georgia. What is more, the American people want less.
The American people understand that, with the Federal Government out of
the way by cutting redtape, innovation thrives, and the American people
do better.
I urge all within the sound of my voice to oppose this motion.
Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
For every $1 we have invested--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no more time remaining.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent. The
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley).
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 359]

YEAS--48

NAYS--51

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

NOT VOTING--1

Hawley

The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 2745 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, Lee amendment No.
2745.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 2745 to amendment No. 2360.

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To terminate wind and solar credits)

At the appropriate place in chapter 5 of subtitle A of
title VII, insert the following:

SEC. _____. TERMINATION FOR WIND AND SOLAR FACILITIES.

(a) Clean Electricity Production Credit.--Section
45Y(d)(4)(A), as added by this Act, is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) In general.--This section shall not apply with
respect to any applicable facility which--
``(i) begins construction after the date which is 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, or
``(ii) is placed in service after December 31, 2027.''.
(b) Clean Electricity Investment Credit.--Section
48E(e)(4)(A), as added by this Act, is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) In general.--This section shall not apply to any
qualified property--
``(i) which is part of an applicable facility, and
``(ii) which--

``(I) begins construction after the date which is 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, or
``(II) is placed in service after December 31, 2027.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this amendment completes the half-baked task
performed by the House of Representatives on these subsidies.
Now, remember, the ``green new scam'' was adopted in 2022 without a
single Republican vote. Not one Republican in the House, not one
Republican in the Senate voted for the ``green new scam'' subsidies.
This language would complete the circle of repeal on these subsidies
by echoing exactly what the House of Representatives did. We can save
more money for the American taxpayer if we adopt this. Not one
Republican voted for it. Not one Republican should oppose this.
I implore all within the sound of my voice to adopt this amendment,
save the American people money, and allow for the American energy
revolution to begin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to speak very briefly, and then
I think my colleagues would like a voice vote.
I rise in opposition to the Lee amendment. The Lee amendment repeals
important technology-neutral electricity credits. Tech-neutral allows
all energy sources to compete on a level playing field.
Wind and solar are an essential part of American energy. These
sources keep prices from skyrocketing as demand soars and keep the AC
on during historic heat waves. U.S. manufacturing in wind and solar
rely on the deployment of these technologies.
Reversing course on 21st-century energy sources wipes out American
jobs.
I urge a ``no'' vote when we vote on a voice vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 2745

Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 21, nays 79, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 360]

YEAS--21

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Britt
Budd
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Hagerty
Hawley
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Moreno
Paul
Risch
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Tuberville

NAYS--79

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Boozman
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Curtis
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman

[[Page S4065]]

Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Justice
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Merkley
Moody
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
The amendment (No. 2745) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask to clarify. I ask unanimous consent
that the remaining votes be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey.

Amendment No. 2817 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2817 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Kim] proposes an amendment
numbered 2817 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike a provision relating to limitations on certain
Medicaid payments)

On page 712, strike line 8 and all that follows through
``revenue.'' on line 15.
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today because every single one of us
in this Chamber knows someone who relies on home and community-based
service workers to maintain their quality of life. Maybe they are
someone with a disability who needs an aide to help with essential
tasks. Maybe they are a senior who requires a home health worker to
keep them safe and healthy. Maybe they are a constituent you have met
or a family member you love.
All of them are dependent on someone who works hard every day because
they care. We owe them the same level of care they give to those we
love. That is what this amendment does. It strikes language that makes
it harder for them to advocate for their own pay and conditions by
adding the burden of needless redtape. It strikes language that makes
it harder for them to ensure that they can provide the best care
possible.
Mr. President, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the
number of home health and personal care aides will increase by more
than 20 percent--nearly 1 million people--by 2033. Millions of people
will be working to help those we care about the most.
I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment and stand with those who
serve the people who need it most.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I am proud that this breakthrough
provision has been included in the Big Beautiful Bill. This will
provide much needed relief for individuals with disabilities who have
waited far too long to be on the waiting list to receive services.
There has been a backlog, and this will help clear it up, to the tune
of billions of dollars.
My colleague's amendment would completely undermine this very
important effort. Ripping out important transparency and accountability
provisions will divert intended resources for those who need it most in
order to pay off public sector unions along the way. That is all it is.
Medicaid exists to serve our patients. I have heard a lot from my
Democratic colleagues about cutting benefits. It is all a lie. They are
about to vote to cut off important benefits for the most vulnerable
among us.
I am tired of the lectures. This is actually a provision that does
it. They are about to vote no. I encourage my colleagues to vote no on
this amendment, which, again, is nothing more than a political payoff
for public sector unions and takes money away from the most vulnerable
among us.

Vote on Amendment No. 2817

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 361 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--52

Amendment No. 2372 to Amendment No. 2360

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2372 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Ms. Ernst] proposes an amendment
numbered 2372 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To end unemployment payments to jobless millionaires)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. ENDING UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS TO JOBLESS
MILLIONAIRES.

(a) Prohibition on Use of Federal Funds.--
(1) In general.--No Federal funds may be used--
(A) to make payments of unemployment compensation benefits
under an unemployment compensation program of the United
States in a year to an individual whose wages during the
individual's base period are equal to or exceed $1,000,000;
or
(B) for any administrative costs associated with making
payments described in subparagraph (A).
(2) Compliance.--
(A) Self-certification.--Any application for unemployment
compensation under an unemployment compensation program of
the United States shall include a form or procedure for an
individual applicant to certify that such individual's wages
during the individual's base period do not equal or exceed
$1,000,000.
(B) Verification.--Each State agency that is responsible
for administering any unemployment compensation program of
the United States shall utilize available systems to verify
wage eligibility by assessing claimant income to the degree
possible.
(3) Recovery of overpayments.--Each State agency that is
responsible for administering any unemployment compensation
program of the United States shall require individuals who
have received amounts of unemployment compensation under such
a program to which they were not entitled to repay such
amounts.
(4) Effective date.--The prohibition under paragraph (1)
shall apply to weeks of unemployment beginning on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Unemployment Compensation Program of the United States
Defined.--In this section, the term ``unemployment
compensation program of the United States'' means--
(1) unemployment compensation for Federal civilian
employees under subchapter I of chapter 85 of title 5, United
States Code;
(2) unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers under
subchapter II of chapter 85 of title 5, United States Code;
(3) extended benefits under the Federal-State Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note);
(4) any Federal temporary extension of unemployment
compensation;
(5) any Federal program that increases the weekly amount of
unemployment compensation payable to individuals; and

[[Page S4066]]

(6) any other Federal program providing for the payment of
unemployment compensation, as determined by the Secretary of
Labor.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, too many of the idle rich are living high
off the hog, collecting government checks for not working, while at the
same time earning a million dollars or more from some other side
venture. Thousands of out-of-work millionaires were paid more than $271
million in unemployment assistance during just the first 2 years of the
Biden administration.
In 2022, the most recent year data is available, nearly 6,000
millionaires were paid almost $58 million in jobless benefits. That is
$10,000 each for each millionaire not work. The question is, Why?
Able-bodied millionaires shouldn't expect handouts made possible by
the overtaxed and overworked Americans. My amendment ends freebees for
freeloading fat cats by disqualifying anyone making a million dollars
or more from being eligible for unemployment income support.
The Senate previously approved a similar proposal by a vote of 100 to
0 that unfortunately never became a law.
We can't afford to miss this opportunity to save as much as $100
million by passing my amendment. So let's show some bipartisan unity
for reducing the deficit by getting millionaires back to work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to have a voice vote. Let me
just speak briefly on this.
This amendment is a backdoor way to undermine unemployment insurance.
The fact is, Republicans have turned down numerous opportunities to
ensure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. That is not what this
amendment is about.
This is about turning a social insurance program that everyone pays
into, a program built on earned benefits, into something Republicans
can cut until it disappears. If it happens to unemployment insurance,
it can happen to other parts of the safety net.
I oppose the amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending measure
violates section 313(b)(1)(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
because it reduces revenues over the budget window.
And I am happy to have a--I ask for the yeas and nays.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President--
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I withdraw my--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I am happy to take a voice vote.
Mr. WYDEN. I am happy as well. I withdraw my point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has withdrawn his point of order.

Vote on Amendment No. 2372

The question occurs on adoption of the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2372) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 2435 to Amendment No. 2360

(Purpose: To cut the price of prescription drugs under
Medicare in half and expand Medicare to cover dental, vision,
and hearing.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2435 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an
amendment numbered 2435 to amendment No. 2360.

(The amendment is printed in the Record of June 29, 2025, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment accomplishes two goals
that poll after poll shows that the American people overwhelmingly
want. No. 1, it cuts prescription drug costs in this country by half by
having Medicare negotiate prices consistent with what other major
countries around the world are doing--something similar to what Trump
has been talking about.
It uses $395 billion in savings to do something else the American
people desperately want: expand Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and
vision. In Vermont and all over this country, you have a lot of seniors
who cannot afford to go to the dentist, cannot afford dentures, cannot
afford hearing aids, cannot afford eyeglasses.
Poll after poll shows that over 80 percent of the American people
support both of these provisions.
I ask for the support of my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Anyone speaking in opposition?

Vote on Amendment No. 2435

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 362]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). On this vote, the yeas are 47,
the nays are 53.
The 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the amendment is
rejected.
The amendment (No. 2435) was rejected.

Order of Business

Amendment No. 2602 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2602 and ask that it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz], for Mrs. Blackburn and
himself, proposes an amendment numbered 2602 to amendment No.
2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the section providing support for artficial
intelligence under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
Program)

Strike section 40012 and insert the following:

SEC. 40012. SUPPORT FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE UNDER THE
BROADBAND EQUITY, ACCESS, AND DEPLOYMENT
PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 60102 of division F of Public Law
117-58 (47 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (N) as
subparagraphs (F) through (R), respectively;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (A) as subparagraph (D);
(C) by inserting before subparagraph (D), as so
redesignated, the following:
``(A) Artificial intelligence.--The term `artificial
intelligence' has the meaning given the term in section 5002
of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of
2020 (15 U.S.C. 9401).
``(B) Artificial intelligence model.--The term `artificial
intelligence model' means a

[[Page S4067]]

software component of an information system that implements
artificial intelligence technology and uses computational,
statistical, or machine-learning techniques to produce
outputs from a defined set of inputs.
``(C) Artificial intelligence system.--The term `artificial
intelligence system' means any data system, software,
hardware, application, tool, or utility that operates, in
whole or in part, using artificial intelligence.'';
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (D), as so
redesignated, the following:
``(E) Automated decision system.--The term `automated
decision system' means any computational process derived from
machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or
artificial intelligence that issues a simplified output,
including a score, classification, or recommendation, to
materially influence or replace human decision making.''; and
(E) by striking subparagraph (O), as so redesignated, and
inserting the following:
``(O) Project.--The term `project' means an undertaking by
a subgrantee under this section to construct and deploy
infrastructure for the provision of--
``(i) broadband service; or
``(ii) artificial intelligence models, artificial
intelligence systems, or automated decision systems.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Appropriation for fiscal year 2025.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to any amounts otherwise
appropriated to the Program, there is appropriated to the
Assistant Secretary for fiscal year 2025, out of any funds in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $500,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2030, to carry out the
Program.
``(B) Set-aside for artificial intelligence infrastructure
master services agreements.--Of the amount appropriated under
subparagraph (A), $25,000,000 shall be used by the Assistant
Secretary for the purpose of negotiating master services
agreements on behalf of subgrantees of an eligible entity or
political subdivision to enable access to quantity purchasing
and licensing discounts for the construction, acquisition,
and deployment of infrastructure for the provision of
artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence
systems, or automated decision systems funded under this
section.'';
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) the construction and deployment of infrastructure for
the provision of artificial intelligence models, artificial
intelligence systems, or automated decision systems; and'';
(4) in subsection (g)(3), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) may, in addition to other authority under applicable
law, deobligate grant funds awarded to an eligible entity
that--
``(i) violates paragraph (2);
``(ii) demonstrates an insufficient level of performance,
or wasteful or fraudulent spending, as defined in advance by
the Assistant Secretary; or
``(iii) if obligated any funds made available under
subsection (b)(5)(A), is not in compliance with subsection
(q) or (r); and'';
(5) in subsection (j)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and
(iii) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
``(iv) certifies that the eligible entity, if obligated any
funds made available under subsection (b)(5)(A), is in
compliance with subsections (q) and (r); and'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and
(iii) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
``(iv) certifies that the eligible entity, if obligated any
funds made available under subsection (b)(5)(A), is in
compliance with subsections (q) and (r); and''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C)--
(i) by redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as clauses (v)
and (vi), respectively; and
(ii) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
``(iv) certifies that the eligible entity, if obligated any
funds made available under subsection (b)(5)(A), is in
compliance with subsections (q) and (r);''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Receipt of Funds Conditioned on Temporary Pause and
Efficiencies.--On and after the date of enactment of this
subsection, no funds made available under subsection
(b)(5)(A) may be obligated to an eligible entity or a
political subdivision thereof that is not in compliance with
subsections (q) and (r).
``(q) Temporary Pause.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
eligible entity or political subdivision thereof to which
funds made available under subsection (b)(5)(A) are obligated
on or after the date of enactment of this subsection may
enforce, during the 5-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this subsection, any law or regulation of that
eligible entity or a political subdivision thereof limiting,
restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence
models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated
decision systems entered into interstate commerce.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) may not be
construed to prohibit the enforcement of any law or
regulation--
``(A)(i) the primary purpose and effect of which is to--
``(I) remove legal impediments to, or facilitate the
deployment or operation of, an artificial intelligence model,
artificial intelligence system, or automated decision system;
or
``(II) streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning,
procurement, or reporting procedures related to the adoption
or deployment of artificial intelligence models, artificial
intelligence systems, or automated decision systems; or
``(ii) that does not impose any substantive design,
performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability,
taxation, fee, or other requirement on artificial
intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or
automated decision systems unless that requirement is imposed
under--
``(I) Federal law; or
``(II) a generally applicable law or regulation, such as a
law or regulation pertaining to unfair or deceptive acts or
practices, child online safety, child sexual abuse material,
rights of publicity, protection of a person's name, image,
voice, or likeness and any necessary documentation for
enforcement, or a body of common law, that may address,
without undue or disproportionate burden, artificial
intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or
automated decision systems to reasonably effectuate the
broader underlying purposes of the law or regulation; and
``(B) that does not impose a fee or bond unless--
``(i) the fee or bond is reasonable and cost-based; and
``(ii) under the fee or bond, artificial intelligence
models, artificial intelligence systems, and automated
decision systems are treated in the same manner as other
models and systems that perform comparable functions.
``(r) Master Services Agreements.--An eligible entity, or
political subdivision thereof, to which funds made available
under subsection (b)(5)(A) are obligated on or after the date
of enactment of this subsection shall certify to the
Assistant Secretary either that--
``(1) each subgrantee of the eligible entity or political
subdivision is utilizing applicable master services
agreements negotiated using amounts made available under
subsection (b)(5)(B); or
``(2) each contract, license, purchase order, or services
agreement entered into, procured, or made by a subgrantee of
the eligible entity or political subdivision for purposes
described in subsection (b)(5)(B) is at least as cost-
effective as the terms of executable master services
agreements, as applicable, negotiated by the Assistant
Secretary using amounts made available under subsection
(b)(5)(B).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section
60102(a)(1) of division F of Public Law 117-58 (47 U.S.C.
1702(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a project'' and
inserting ``a project described in subsection (a)(2)(O)(i)'';
and
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``a project'' and
inserting ``a project described in subsection (a)(2)(O)(i)''.

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, a few hours ago, we had an agreement.
Blackburn-Cruz was set to pass. It was a compromise that would have
imposed a 5-year moratorium on State regulation of artificial
intelligence.
When I spoke to President Trump last night, he said it was a terrific
agreement.
The agreement protected kids, protected the rights of creative
artists. But outside interests opposed that deal. Communist China,
which desperately wants to beat the United States in the race for AI,
hated the deal. Liberal politicians, like Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen
Bass and ``Comrade'' Mamdani, who are all eager to aggressively
regulate AI, all hated the moratorium. Randi Weingarten spoke out
against the moratorium. So did transgender groups and radical leftwing
groups that want to use blue State regulations to mandate woke AI.
In this body, your word is your currency. Our deal would have passed
easily. But a couple of hours ago, the other side backed out.
I recognize that many of my colleagues would prefer not to vote on
this matter. Therefore, I withdraw the Blackburn-Cruz amendment, and I
would suggest that Blackburn No. 2814, the motion to strike, be adopted
by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment (No. 2602) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

[[Page S4068]]

Amendment No. 2814 to Amendment No. 2360

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, yes, indeed, there were problems with
the language in this amendment. And I regret that we weren't able to
come to a compromise that would protect our Governors, our legislators,
State legislators, our attorneys general, and, of course, House Members
who have expressed concern over this language.
I appreciate that we are going to withdraw this one, and I would like
to be recognized on my amendment No. 2814 and ask that it be reported
by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mrs. Blackburn], for herself
and Ms. Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 2814 to
amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the section relating to support for artificial
intelligence)

Strike section 40012.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I do want to thank Senator Cruz for
the work and the time that he put in trying to find a resolution to
this issue. I do appreciate that.
But what we know is this: This body has proven that they cannot
legislate on emerging technology. It is frustrating. We have not passed
online privacy. We have not passed the NO FAKES Act, the COPIED Act.
There are all of these pieces of legislation dealing with AI that we
haven't passed.
But do you know who has passed it? It is our States. They are the
ones that are protecting children in the virtual space. They are the
ones that are out here protecting our entertainers' name, image,
likeness--of broadcasters, podcasters, authors. And it is appropriate
that we approach this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
We have not reached a resolution on this. So, therefore, I ask my
colleagues to join me in striking section 40012.
Vote yes. Let's pass this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let's get everybody off to the Fourth of July and a
happy Independence Day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 2814

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the
amendment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 363 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Banks
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Merkley
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--1

Tillis

The amendment (No. 2814) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 2717 to Amendment No. 2360

Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2717, and I ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Ms. Rosen], for herself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 2717 to amendment No.
2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To maintain parity for wind and solar facilities under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986)

At the end of subtitle A of title VII, insert the
following:

CHAPTER 7--ADDITIONAL TAX PROVISIONS

SEC. 70701. MAINTAINING PARITY FOR WIND AND SOLAR FACILITIES.

(a) Clean Electricity Production Credit.--Section 45Y, as
amended by subsections (a) and (d) of section 70512 of this
Act, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (4), and
(2) by striking subsection (h).
(b) Clean Electricity Investment Credit.--Section 48E(e),
as amended by subsections (a) and (c)(1) of section 70513 of
this Act, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (4), and
(2) by striking subsection (i).

SEC. 70702. ESTABLISHMENT OF 39.6 PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME
TAX RATE BRACKET.

(a) In General.--Section 1(j)(2) is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G) and by
inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) 39.6 percent rate bracket.--Notwithstanding
subparagraphs (A) through (E), in prescribing the tables
under this subsection for purposes of paragraph (3)(B)--
``(i) the excess of taxable income over $1,000,000
($1,500,000 in the case of married individuals filing
jointly), if any, shall be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent,
and
``(ii) paragraph (3)(B)(i) shall be applied with respect to
such dollar amounts described in clause (i) by substituting
`2024' for `2017'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2025.

Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I rise today to call for a vote on my
amendment to protect critical investment and production tax credits for
solar and wind projects.
For our Nation to be truly energy independent and to be able to
compete with China, we must be a global leader on the energy sources of
the future, like solar and wind. But these projects just don't happen
overnight. By the time many of these projects are ready to come online,
the tax credits to help make them financially viable will have expired
because of this bill.
This bill will kill the clean energy industry, costing thousands of
good-paying jobs, and will raise energy costs for hard-working
families. My amendment gives these industries the runway they need. I
urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, going back to endless subsidies is not
sensible energy tax policy. Allowing adversarial nations and the
industries that have been fairly industrialized to benefit from
incentives intended to benefit Americans is doubly unfair. I urge my
colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 2717

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 364 Leg.]

YEAS--47

NAYS--53

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer

[[Page S4069]]

Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 2717) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 2790 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2790 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 2790 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To advance the effective date of the eligibility verification
requirements from January 1, 2028, to January 1, 2027)

At the end of 71104, add the following:
(b) Effective Date Change.--Section 1902(ww)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(ww)(1)), as added by
this section, is amended, in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by striking ``January 1, 2028'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2027''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Federal Government has a list of dead
people. This bill would require those who administer Medicaid to check
the Federal Government's dead people list before they pay the Medicaid
payment out--duh.
This bill, unfortunately, says that those who administer Medicaid
don't have to check before they cut a check to see if the dead person
is dead until January 1, 2028--duh. My amendment would move it up to
January 1, 2027. So we would pay fewer dead people who keep cashing the
checks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, why would anybody vote against this? Duh.
We can accept--
Mr. KENNEDY. They wouldn't--duh.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order. Order. Order in the Chamber.
Mr. WYDEN. We can accept a voice vote on this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. I accept a voice vote. Duh.

Vote on Amendment No. 2790

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is agreed to--duh.
The amendment (No. 2790) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Amendment No. 2719 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2719 and
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Hickenlooper], for himself
and others, proposes an amendment numbered 2719 to amendment
No. 2360.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the provision terminating the residential clean
energy credit, and for other purposes)

Strike section 70506 and insert the following:

SEC. 70506. TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL CLEAN ENERGY CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Section 25D is amended by striking
subsection (h) and inserting the following new subsection:
``(h) Termination.--The credit allowed under this section
shall not apply with respect to any expenditures made after
December 31, 2026.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 25D(g) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and'' after the comma
at the end,
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `` and before January 1,
2033, 30 percent,'' and inserting ``30 percent.'', and
(3) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5).
(c) Establishment of 39.6 Percent Individual Income Tax
Rate Bracket.--
(1) In general.--Section 1(j)(2) is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G) and by
inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) 39.6 percent rate bracket.--Notwithstanding
subparagraphs (A) through (E), in prescribing the tables
under this subsection for purposes of paragraph (3)(B)--
``(i) the excess of taxable income over $100,000,000
($50,000,000 in the case of married individuals filing
separate returns), if any, shall be taxed at a rate of 39.6
percent, and
``(ii) paragraph (3)(B)(i) shall be applied with respect to
each of such dollar amounts by substituting `2024' for
`2017'.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2025.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, Coloradans are already worried about
keeping their lights on and their homes cool. My God, has it been hot.
This budget bill makes it worse, actually increasing energy costs while
killing over 2 million Americans jobs.
Republicans want to gut the residential clean energy credits that
help millions of Americans power their homes and save on electricity.
They will shut down the better part of an entire industry--85,000
jobs--in 18 months. It is just like running into a brick wall. They are
also taxing clean energy and cutting larger energy credits, which will
create more expensive energy and more blackouts. We should create jobs,
cut costs, and boost energy production, not sacrifice working families
so that the richest Americans pay less taxes.
That is why we have introduced our simple amendment to extend the
residential clean energy credit to the end of next year, giving small
businesses a runway to weather this storm--just 18 months to give a
valuable industry a fighting chance. Please vote to give them that
chance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, supporting an all-of-the-above energy
policy does not require excess subsidies to certain technologies, as
has been the case in the years since the misnamed Inflation Reduction
Act.
This bill ends the mistake of endless subsidies for favored energy
sources. Phasing out subsidies from mature industries is prudent and
responsible.
Americans have been paying for these subsidies for decades, and it is
time these industries compete on a level playing field.
This bill provides American businesses of all kinds broad-based
incentives to grow and hire, including businesses that generate energy
and produce the products that help them to do that.
I urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 2719

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 365 Leg.]

YEAS--48

NAYS--52

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 2719) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 2564 to Amendment No. 2360

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2564 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.

[[Page S4070]]

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen], for herself
and others, proposes an amendment numbered 2564 to amendment
No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal amendments that terminate certain clean energy
credits, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

CHAPTER 7--ADDITIONAL TAX PROVISIONS

SEC. 70701. REPEAL OF TERMINATION OF CERTAIN CLEAN ENERGY
CREDITS.

The amendments made by sections 70505, 70506, 70507, and
70508 are repealed and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
shall be applied as if such amendments had not been enacted.

SEC. 70702. ESTABLISHMENT OF 39.6 PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME
TAX RATE BRACKET.

(a) In General.--Section 1(j)(2) is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G) and by
inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) 39.6 percent rate bracket.--Notwithstanding
subparagraphs (A) through (E), in prescribing the tables
under this subsection for purposes of paragraph (3)(B)--
``(i) the excess of taxable income over $10,000,000, if
any, shall be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, and
``(ii) paragraph (3)(B)(i) shall be applied with respect to
such $10,000,000 amount by substituting `2024' for `2017'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2025.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, a vote for this amendment is a vote to
make energy and housing more affordable and to support American jobs
and businesses.
This amendment simply keeps four bipartisan tax incentives as they
are in current law: the energy efficiency home improvement credit, the
residential clean energy credit, the new energy efficiency home credit,
and the energy efficiency commercial building deduction.
Last year, these credits helped build 350,000 new, efficient homes
that saved families about $450 a year on energy.
Finally, these credits create good jobs in a sector that is growing
at twice the rate of jobs in the overall economy. If we vote to adopt
this amendment, we can keep that job creation going.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, continuing to subsidize mature industries
is wasteful, and this bill, instead, focuses on broad-based incentives
for all businesses.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 2564

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the
amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 366 Leg.]

YEAS--49

NAYS--51

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 2564) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Order of Procedure

Amendment No. 2847 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2847 and ask it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 2847 to amendment No. 2360.

Mr. WARNER. I ask the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: Use of revenues from lease payments from Metropolitan
Washington Airports for aviation safety improvements and other
purposes)

At the end of section 40007, insert the following:

SEC. 40007A. USE OF REVENUES FROM LEASE PAYMENTS FROM
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS FOR AVIATION
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--Section 49104(b) of title 49, United
States Code, as amended by section 40007, is amended by
striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Funding for aviation safety improvements.--
``(A) In general.--In order to carry out the purposes
described in subparagraph (B), in addition to amounts
otherwise made available, there is appropriated to the
Secretary of Transportation, out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated for fiscal year 2025, $63,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2029.
``(B) Purposes described.--The purposes described in this
subparagraph are the following:
``(i) To implement preliminary and final recommendations on
any safety measures directed by the National Transportation
Safety Board and the Secretary relating to the tragic mid-air
collision between American Airlines Flight 5342 and United
States Army Aviation Brigade Priority Air Transport 25 on
January 29, 2025.
``(ii) To establish a permanent memorial for victims of
such tragic mid-air collision and to provide for maintenance
of such memorial.
``(iii) Subject to subparagraph (C), to undertake projects
directly related to the safety and security of airports under
the jurisdiction of the Airports Authority.
``(C) Requirements.--In undertaking the projects under
subparagraph (B)(iii), the Secretary, working with the
Airports Authority, shall prioritize projects that improve
safety for all current flight service located at Ronald
Reagan Washington Airport, including non-stop Part 121 flight
service between Ronald Reagan Washington Airport and the
airports primarily serving the following localities:
``(i) Birmingham, AL.
``(ii) Huntsville, AL.
``(iii) Montgomery, AL.
``(iv) Fayetteville, AR.
``(v) Little Rock, AR.
``(vi) Daytona Beach, FL.
``(vii) Orlando, FL.
``(viii) Panama City, FL.
``(ix) Pensacola, FL.
``(x) Sarasota, FL.
``(xi) Tallahassee, FL.
``(xii) Tampa, FL.
``(xiii) West Palm Beach, FL.
``(xiv) Fort Lauderdale, FL.
``(xv) Fort Myers, FL.
``(xvi) Fort Walton, FL.
``(xvii) Jacksonville, FL.
``(xviii) Key West, FL.
``(xix) Miami, FL.
``(xx) Cedar Rapids, IA.
``(xxi) Des Moines, IA.
``(xxii) Indianapolis, IN.
``(xxiii) Wichita, KS.
``(xxiv) Lexington, KY.
``(xxv) Louisville, KY.
``(xxvi) Baton Rouge, LA.
``(xxvii) New Orleans, LA.
``(xxviii) Bangor, ME.
``(xxix) Portland, ME.
``(xxx) Grand Rapids, MI.
``(xxxi) Lansing, MI.
``(xxxii) Traverse City, MI.
``(xxxiii) Kansas City, MO.
``(xxxiv) St. Louis, MO.
``(xxxv) Jackson, MS.
``(xxxvi) Omaha, NE.
``(xxxvii) Asheville, NC.
``(xxxviii) Charlotte, NC.
``(xxxix) Greensboro, NC.

[[Page S4071]]

``(xl) Raleigh, NC.
``(xli) Wilmington, NC.
``(xlii) Newark, NJ.
``(xliii) Akron/Canton, OH.
``(xliv) Cincinnati, OH.
``(xlv) Cleveland, OH.
``(xlvi) Columbus, OH.
``(xlvii) Dayton, OH.
``(xlviii) Oklahoma City, OK.
``(xlix) Tulsa, OK.
``(l) Philadelphia, PA.
``(li) Pittsburgh, PA.
``(lii) Providence, RI.
``(liii) Charleston, SC.
``(liv) Columbia, SC.
``(lv) Greenville, SC.
``(lvi) Hilton Head Island, SC.
``(lvii) Myrtle Beach, SC.
``(lviii) Memphis, TN.
``(lix) Chattanooga, TN.
``(lx) Knoxville, TN.
``(lxi) Nashville, TN.
``(lxii) Austin, TX.
``(lxiii) Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX.
``(lxiv) Dallas-Love Field, TX.
``(lxv) Houston-Bush, TX.
``(lxvi) Houston-Hobby, TX.
``(lxvii) Salt Lake City, UT.
``(lxviii) Norfolk, VA.
``(lxix) Burlington, VT.
``(lxx) Seattle, WA.
``(lxxi) Madison, WI.
``(lxxii) Milwaukee, WI.
``(lxxiii) Charleston, WV.''.
(b) Reduction in Other Funding.--Section 20306(a) of title
51, United States Code, as added by section 40005(a), is
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``$9,995,000,000'' and inserting ``$9,910,000,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (6)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``$1,000,000,000'' and inserting ``$915,000,000''; and
(B) in subparagraph (F)--
(i) by striking ``$85,000,000'' and inserting ``$0''; and
(ii) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting ``$0''.

Mr. WARNER. Colleagues, we all know on January 29 of this year, 67
individuals lost their lives when a military helicopter and a passenger
jet collided near Reagan National Airport. This tragedy underscores the
need for more safety improvements at National Airport.
The reconciliation bill increases, actually doubles, the amount of
rent that National and Dulles pay the government. But it doesn't use
any of that money to make those airports safer. And we all use those
airports.
There is no good rationale for increasing those rents and not using
them for aviation safety.
My amendment would increase aviation safety and security. It also
honors the victims of the recent midair collision: first, to implement
the NTSB's and FAA's preliminary and final recommendations on any
safety measures resulting from the crash at National; second, to
establish and maintain a permanent memorial for the victims of the
crash of January 29. And the families strongly support this amendment;
and, third, to undertake projects directly related to the safety and
security of flights from both Dulles and National to other airports
across the country.
Some of those airports include Charlotte, NC; Portland, ME;
Charleston, SC; Indianapolis, IN; Wichita, KS; Louisville, KY;
Nashville, TN; and Cleveland, OH.
I also want to thank my colleagues Senators Kaine, Van Hollen, and
Alsobrooks for cosponsoring this amendment. I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, Senate Republicans are providing the FAA, in
this bill, with $12.5 billion to transform the air traffic control
system--a concept that is incredibly popular with the American people
and badly needed.
The January 29 midair collision was a tragedy, and it should never
have happened. The Senate Commerce Committee is leading the
investigation into what went wrong and how to prevent another accident.
The introduced text updates the rent calculations for the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the entity that runs the
two airports owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government
originally calculated the rent in 1987 at $7.5 million, massively below
market rates. This bill increases that to $15 million, still
dramatically below market rates. By comparison, the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey is paying over $100 million in rent annually to
New York City.
On top of that, Dulles is about to start subleasing extremely
valuable land, and the Federal taxpayers are not going to see a dime of
that money.
This amendment is nothing more than an earmark for Northern Virginia,
and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, do I have any remaining time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. WARNER. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 2847

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 367 Leg.]

YEAS--50

NAYS--50

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moreno
Mullin
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 2847) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Maryland.
Does the Senator wish to call up his amendment?

Amendment No. 2585 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I call up my amendment No. 2585 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Van Hollen], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 2585 to amendment No.
2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the appropriations for the Office of Management and
Budget)

Strike section 90103.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I know it has been a long day's
journey into the night, but I think Senators were surprised to learn
that this bill has a $100 million slush fund directed to OMB. So that
would be on top of its existing budget.
This is at a time when FEMA grants to many of our States have been
canceled; grants for law enforcement have been frozen; grants for
victims of crimes are on hold. That is not efficiency. That is creating
chaos and uncertainty, and I ask my colleagues: Why in the world would
we want to send another $100 million to OMB?
They are currently before the Appropriations Committee with their
current request for fiscal year 2026. They want a 13-percent increase
there; we will consider their request.
They, of course, are telling everybody else to do more with less, but
they want more. We should get rid of this wasteful spending. They don't
need $100 million. And so I am proposing to strike the $100 million,
reduce the deficit at least by $100 million.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this is pretty simple. I don't think
anybody can dispute the Office of Management and Budget needs to
identify budgeting and accounting inefficiencies in the executive
branch. They need the resources to do it, so I ask my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.

[[Page S4072]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would say the best way to save taxpayer money is
right now--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Van Hollen--

Vote on Amendment No. 2585

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 368 Leg.]

YEAS--50

NAYS--50

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 2585) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 2723 to Amendment No. 2360

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2723 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 2723 to amendment No. 2360.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To permanently extend the limitation on individual deductions
for certain state and local taxes)

Strike section 70120 and insert the following:

SEC. 70120. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL
DEDUCTIONS FOR CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL TAXES.

Section 164(b)(6) is amended by striking ``, and before
January 1, 2026''.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as you know, when we passed the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act of 2017, we capped State and local taxes at $10,000. I
liked it then; I like it now.
The bill before us dramatically raises that cap. I think it is a
mistake. I think it is bad policy. But I realize that my instincts are
not infallible. Some people don't realize that, but mine aren't. And
for that reason--I respect this entire body, and I respect everybody in
it. I don't think my intellect is superior, and I don't think my
instincts are infallible. For that reason, I ask to withdraw my
amendment, whatever the hell the number was.
The amendment (No. 2723) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. THUNE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
(Mr. TUBERVILLE assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. SHEEHY assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. HAGERTY assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. CURTIS assumed the Chair.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 2848 to Amendment No. 2360

(Purpose: To improve the bill.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2848 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an
amendment numbered 2848 to amendment No. 2360.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 2849 to Amendment No. 2848

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I call up my amendment with Senator
Kelly of Arizona, No. 2849, and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Ms. Klobuchar], for herself and
Mr. Kelly, proposes an amendment numbered 2849 to amendment
No. 2848.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike a provision relating to delayed implementation of
the supplemental nutrition assistance program matching funds
requirements)

In section 4(a)(2) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(as added by section 10105(a)(2)), strike clause (iii) of
subparagraph (B).

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, in addition to the many outrages of
this bill--$4 trillion in debt, millions of people off of their
healthcare--in the middle of the night, it got worse. It is something
that must see the light of day, and that is, we all know it shifts $64
billion to the States that they can't pay for for food assistance on
the backs of veterans, on the backs of kids, on the backs of people
with disabilities. But the whole reason we were told that it was
shifted over to the States was so that we would incentivize States to
reduce errors. In the middle of the night, the biggest hypocrisy of the
entire bill, the Republicans have rewarded States that have the highest
error rates in the country--10 States with the highest error rates--
just to help Alaska, which has the highest error rate.
So the message to the country and the Nation's Governors and the
Republican Senators is this: Raise your error rates. Get them up to 10
percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent. Make a whole bunch of
mistakes when it comes to SNAP because then you will get more money.
You won't have your cuts for a year, you won't even have them for the
next year. For the rest of us, the States--all the States in the
Midwest--that are doing their best, they have got to pay in.
So, Senators, decide: Are you going to go with your States, or are
you going to reward waste, fraud, and abuse, because with this
provision that you put in there, you have done the opposite.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Strike this fiscal insanity from the bill and vote
yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my colleague from Minnesota.
We have amended the State matching funds requirement for SNAP to
provide a delay implementation date for States that have extremely high
payment error rates. These States will have additional time to plan, to
budget, and to adjust. This will help all States be ready for the
change. By 2030, all States will have phased in and be subject to the
matching funds requirement.
The States involved, if we did fiscal year 2024--again, the key to
this is doing it in a fair way. Alaska is one of the States. Maryland
is one of the States. Oregon is one of the States. New York is one of
the States, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Florida, Georgia,
Alaska, and DC--hardly Republican priorities.
As Amy said, I would vote what is important to your State. If you
have got a high error rate, this allows you additional time in order to
get your house in order so that you will not be penalized.

Vote on Amendment No. 2849

With that, I ask for the yeas and nays and encourage a positive
vote--no vote. A positive vote, meaning a no vote.

[[Page S4073]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 369 Leg.]

YEAS--45

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

NAYS--55

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Heinrich
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Ossoff
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Warnock
Wicker
Young
The amendment (No. 2849) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.

Point of Order

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against page 1,
lines 3 to 5, of the pending amendment, which violates section
313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.
The text will be stricken.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it has been an extraordinary period here
in the Senate--not a good one because it is ``families lose and
billionaires win.''
We kept advocating: Join us in a better vision for America in which
families thrive and billionaires--they pay their fair share for a
change.
Thank you so much to the floor staff for your steadfast support
through the night. The Parliamentarian team, led by Elizabeth
MacDonough, has been amazing. But I want to give particular thanks to
the budget team, the revenue team, and the minority leader's team, who
worked so carefully together--competently, expertly.
But the result--the result is bad for America. We need to come back
and have a vision in which we lift up opportunity and hope for everyone
in America, not this strategy of more wealth for the best off while
cutting the programs of healthcare--16 million people losing healthcare
to fund tax breaks for billionaires; 4 million children going hungry to
fund tax breaks for billionaires.
This is morally wrong, and we will keep fighting to the very end to
say we can put America on a better course for this generation and the
next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the other side of the story. But we agree
on this: A lot of people worked very hard on both sides of the aisle.
Tensions have been high at times, but we are at the end now. And to all
those who have made this possible, thank you for your hard work.
I would like to make five very brief points about what I think is
good about this bill. It is the most consequential border security
package in the history of our country. It is $175 billion. It does
several things. It hires more ICE agents, it finishes the wall, and it
increases detention beds by 100,000.
Let me tell you why that is important. In September of 2022, Mr.
Ibarra, who was convicted of killing Laken Riley, the young lady in
Georgia not far from where I live, was apprehended but he was paroled.
And why was he paroled?

Subject was paroled due to detention capacity at the
Central Processing Center in El Paso, Texas.

They didn't have a bed for him, so they let him go, and 18 months
later, approximately, he kills Laken Riley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GRAHAM. This bill fixes that and a bunch of other stuff.
Thanks.

Vote on Amendment No. 2848

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 370 Leg.]

YEAS--50

NAYS--50

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50.
The Senate being equally divided, the Vice President votes in the
affirmative, and the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2848) was agreed to.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments.

Vote on Amendment No. 2360, as Amended

The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there further amendments?
If not, the question occurs on adoption of amendment No. 2360, as
amended.
Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 371 Leg.]

YEAS--50

NAYS--50

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50.
The Senate being equally divided, the Vice President votes in the
affirmative, and the amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2360), in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.

[[Page S4074]]

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will read the title of the bill for the
third time.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.

Vote on H.R. 1, As Amended

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 372 Leg.]

YEAS--50

NAYS--50

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The VICE PRESIDENT. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50.
The Senate being equally divided, the Vice President votes in the
affirmative, and the bill, as amended, is passed.
The bill (H.R. 1), as amended, was passed.
(Applause.)

____________________