[Pages S4273-S4280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Rescission

  This time, President Trump has come back with a new idea that I want 
to discuss here today. The President has come to Congress's doorstep 
with a bill called a rescission bill.
  One of my colleagues, at lunch, said we need a new word. I know what 
``rescission'' is. He knows what ``rescission'' is. But the American 
people may not. It sounds like a foreign word, he said. It does, in a 
way, but it is a legal term. And it is a request to cut funding already 
appropriated.
  So money appropriated by Congress, signed by a President, sent to the 
administration, they decide they are not going to spend; they are going 
to rescind it--a rescission bill.
  So here comes President Trump's first rescission bill in his second 
term. And what does he come up with? This request would cut $1.1 
billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  Do you listen to public radio, public TV? Are you aware of what it 
does for your community?
  This would eliminate any Federal assistance for the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting.
  It includes $700 million, which is eliminated, to provide critical 
funding for local, public media. This would devastate more than 1,500 
public radio and TV stations across this country.
  The bottom line: Do you think we are better off with less information 
as Americans or more?
  The bottom line: Do you want a choice to pick your own source of 
information? Do you want that choice to include the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting?
  The President says: No, we are not going to provide the assistance 
for that to continue.
  What it means for small towns in Downstate Illinois and all the way 
up to Chicago, in the classrooms there, is that public media stations 
provide essential, nonpartisan news coverage, lifesaving emergency and 
weather alerts, and educational programs for our kids.
  I don't know the circumstances in Texas for this terrible flooding, 
and I don't want to presume anything. But as a general rule, more 
emergency information available to American families is better than 
worse. President Trump wants to eliminate the source, the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting, and that means in many communities in my State 
of Illinois and around the country, the radio will be silent, when it 
might be giving a warning--a warning that extreme weather is on the 
way.
  For most rural communities, this local broadcasting is especially 
crucial. Rural public broadcasting stations are often the only source 
of local news--the only source of emergency alerts in the region.
  These local stations, also, are truly independent. They reflect the 
needs of the community and the people that they serve. They go out of 
their way to be nonpartisan. I know because I have dealt with them for 
decades.
  For example, let me tell you about one station, WTVP, the local PBS 
affiliate serving Central Illinois. They have a program called ``A Shot 
of Ag,'' which shares stories and perspectives on farming, farm life, 
and the rural-urban divide in my State.
  I am proud to be a Downstater. I am proud as well to represent the 
city of Chicago. Why would I want to cut off information for the 
Downstate farming community that is available through public 
broadcasting?
  Right now, in my home State of Illinois, there are 5 counties out of 
the 102

[[Page S4274]]

counties that are news deserts. Forty other counties have one news 
source left for broadcast. This rescissions package would eliminate 
$700 million in support of local radios and TV stations, forcing many 
of these rural stations with small donor bases to close, turn them off, 
and be unavailable to the people who live in the community.
  In these remote Illinois counties, these stations deliver critical 
services that commercial broadcasters have abandoned in less profitable 
markets.
  What does it mean? Once these stations are gone, they are gone. It 
changes the culture, the information, the future. And in times of 
crisis, that could mean, in the extreme, the difference between life 
and death.
  Let me explain.
  Radio stations in Alaska rely on the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting to fund 98 percent of their operations. They will lose the 
ability to share information about terrible weather conditions that are 
threatening the people of Alaska.
  In Alabama--a Senator was just here from Alabama--folks will go 
without emergency alerts during tornado scares.
  And just this last weekend, as I mentioned, a deadly flash flood took 
the lives of over a hundred people--and counting, sadly--in rural 
Central Texas. While we don't know exactly what procedures were in 
place, we do know that this funding is vital for emergency alerts, 
especially when disasters happen in the middle of the night.
  These are critical services, but President Trump doesn't agree. In 
his request to Congress, he justified cutting the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, and here is what he said:

       [F]ederal spending on [the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting] subsidizes a public media system that is 
     politically biased and is an unnecessary expense to the 
     taxpayer.

  If your family is warned of an extreme weather condition on the way 
and you find a safe place, it is necessary. It is essential as part of 
your responsibility to your family to protect the source of 
information.
  These publicly funded local stations educate our kids, deliver 
emergency alerts, and inform our democracy. They are not an unnecessary 
expense by any measure. They are a lifeline.
  I would like to share a story about the NPR affiliate WGLT, a public 
radio station owned by the Illinois State University, serving Normal, 
IL. WGLT hosts candidate events and forums ahead of each election. 
Their mission is to keep neighbors connected and talking to each other. 
Its goal is to keep polarization out of local government, and it does 
just that.

  WGLT had 100 percent bipartisan participation from candidates in the 
McLean County municipal election event. And McLean County municipal 
voter turnout has increased in local elections, thanks to this public 
broadcasting station. For the President to say they are politically 
biased is just plain false.
  Another station, WQPT, is the Quad Cities', in Illinois, only locally 
owned station, serving eastern Iowa and western Illinois. It is more 
than just a TV station. WQPT's First Book Club outreach program 
provides five free books every year to at-risk kids by partnering with 
title I classrooms. They ensure the kids whose families can't afford to 
buy books or might otherwise not have access are given the opportunity 
to read and learn just like every other kid.
  Since the start of the program, WQPT has given away 400,000 free 
books to kids from low-income, ``English as a second language,'' rural, 
and special needs families. That is what Donald Trump calls 
``unnecessary expense to the taxpayer.'' It could be life-changing for 
that kid.
  While Donald Trump says these rescissions and this rescission request 
is in the spirit of improving government efficiency, I ask: Is there 
anything efficient about denying information to American citizens, 
about not giving American citizens a choice when it comes to 
broadcasting?
  I will tell you what this request for me is. It is an attack on rural 
America, just like the Big Beautiful Bill, because let's not forget: 
Thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill the President just signed into law, 
300 rural hospitals could close around this country, closing their 
doors and the critical services they offer.
  With this rescission request, small towns and rural communities are 
going to get hit again, essentially losing their only access to trusted 
local media in many instances. These cuts could irreparably harm 
communities across America that count on public media for 24/7 news, 
music, education programming, and emergency alert services.
  I urge my Republican colleagues. Privately, they tell me they don't 
want to see the Corporation for Public Broadcasting go away. The 
question is, Will they step up next week and vote that way? Many of 
them represent rural areas, smalltown America. To stand up for these 
people and to vote down this request to cut funding that has long 
enjoyed bipartisan support, I believe that there will be bipartisan 
support for this.
  I urge my colleagues to come to the floor today to speak on the 
subject.
  And I am now going to yield the floor to my colleague Senator Wyden 
from Oregon, who is next.
  Senator Wyden, take it away.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank 
Senator Durbin for his work on this and on so many issues exactly like 
this. What Senator Durbin's career has always been about is making sure 
that communities are stronger, more inclusive, and give everybody a 
shot at getting ahead, and I just want to thank him for doing this and 
all the times over the years that we have had a chance to work 
together.
  Now, as Senator Durbin has indicated, a few days ago, Republicans 
rammed their budget bill through the Senate. In the coming weeks, they 
will force a vote on yet another dangerous piece of legislation. Any 
day now, the Senate is going to vote on a bill that will let 
Republicans revoke previously approved Federal funding for key services 
and key programs that our people rely on--all so they can follow 
through on Donald Trump's illegal and disastrous funding freeze he 
tried to implement earlier.
  Under their bill, Republicans want to gut over 70 percent--7-0--70 
percent of funding for public broadcasting. Now, when you hear the 
words ``public broadcasting,'' a lot of people, of course, think about 
the beloved characters Elmo and Big Bird, who are wonderful. I remember 
that with our kids. At the same time, public broadcasting is a lot more 
than that.
  Over the last several years, local newspapers and radio broadcasters 
have been sidelined in many parts of the country. They just don't have 
the funds to keep their doors open. Many are getting bought up by 
private equity funds and corporate and media conglomerates that 
sanitize and repackage local reporting to fit their own media 
narrative.
  Oftentimes, these new owners close the doors of local papers 
altogether. This is especially true, as Senator Durbin eloquently 
mentioned, and a challenge in rural areas. There, broadband access is 
often unreliable and often too expensive to get out far into these 
communities.
  Meanwhile, news is increasingly driven by the interests of big cities 
sitting behind pay walls or requiring high-speed broadband to access 
it.
  Now, this issue is a personal one for me. I am a journalist's kid. I 
grew up with a front-row seat seeing the importance of protecting 
reporters and the vital work they do. That work is central to our 
democracy.
  My home State hasn't been immune to the changes in the media 
landscape. More and more, Oregonians turn to public TV and radio 
programs like Oregon Public Broadcasting for news and information. In 
some of my State's most rural areas, like, say, Halfway in Eastern 
Oregon, Oregon Public Broadcasting is the only broadcast station 
residents can access.
  These programs are literally a lifeline for Oregonians during a time 
when local journalism is dying off.
  Not only do these programs provide news that is trustworthy, they 
also serve as linchpins in State and local emergency alert programs. 
Oregon Public Broadcasting is a State primary station for our State's 
emergency alert system. The broadcasters work closely with Oregon's 
Office of Emergency Management and other first responders to monitor 
and alert residents about

[[Page S4275]]

statewide, regional, or national emergencies.
  In 2024 alone, Oregon Public Broadcasting helped notify Oregonians 
about child abductions, severe storms, and flash floods. Unfortunately, 
just this past weekend, we saw the devastating impact of underfunded 
emergency alert systems with the deadly flash flooding in Texas.
  As more details emerge, there is one area that seems to me to be 
clear: More could and should have been done to bolster the local 
emergency alert system to help avoid and limit the horrendous tragedies 
that we have watched nightly for the last few days.
  As extreme, deadly weather events like this become more and more 
common, local, State, and Federal governments need to be investing in, 
not shrinking, systems like public TV and radio.
  These programs play such an important role in emergency situations, 
helping to get the most up-to-date information to their viewers and 
listeners. Instead, Republicans are watching the catastrophic situation 
unfold in Texas and still plowing ahead with plans to essentially 
defund these local emergency alert systems anyway.
  Cutting off this funding is going to be a death sentence for one of 
the most reliable sources of news and information that our people rely 
on.
  And rural areas that aren't served by big corporate media companies 
are going to be hit the hardest. Defunding public broadcasting is going 
to take news even farther away from local communities. And I know the 
people of my State don't want to be dealt with by somebody from a town 
on the eastern seaboard in a high rise.
  I am going to close with this: Everything Republicans have done since 
gaining their trifecta of power has been with the goal of helping 
corporations consolidate power and profits on the backs of everybody 
else. And, for me, this is a regular reality because I see it as the 
ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over 
taxes and trade and healthcare. This bill is no different from what we 
have seen over the last few weeks in terms of corporations 
consolidating power and benefiting from legislation.
  If it passes, this bill is going to take a wrecking ball to the 
services that Americans across this country rely on. It is going to 
make communities less safe just so Republicans can brag about another 
partisan ideological trophy.
  So that is what we are dealing with here. When Donald Trump says: We 
are going to do this, Republicans say: How high should we jump?
  By passing this legislation, Republicans would send a message, once 
again, that they are willing and eager to give up their congressional 
power to the executive branch.
  I so appreciate Senator Durbin bringing this issue to the floor of 
the Senate to open a lot of eyes on what is on the line because I know 
he--and we have talked about this before. We believe in a government 
that gives everybody a fair shot, gives everybody a chance to get 
ahead.
  You have made that point today; that government is not just supposed 
to be about the mighty and the powerful and the people with money. And 
I thank you for this and all your wonderful service.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in supporting 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I want to talk about two 
things: one, the people we represent and why it is so important that we 
maintain this service that is so essential to their well-being, and 
second, I want to speak about the institution we are part of and why it 
is an absolute betrayal of this institution's values and procedures to 
try to cut this program in this way and at this time.
  I mean, first of all, all of us have public broadcasting in our 
communities. One of the biggest challenges, especially in our rural 
communities, is all the forces that are fraying the bonds that have 
been so central to the quality of life in those communities. It is our 
community hospitals that are under such financial stress. It is the 
lack of manufacturing that we are trying to have come back, where there 
are good jobs. It is the depopulation, where we can't get folks--there 
are not enough folks to serve in the volunteer fire departments.
  These are real challenges to who I think all of us here who represent 
rural folks appreciate are really among the best folks we have in this 
Nation. You know, it is rural folks who sign up and enlist in the 
military at a far greater percentage than other parts of America, who 
pay the price of wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever it may be that 
the Commander in Chief and Congress send them.
  We have had a discussion in here that I do believe is bipartisan 
about the importance of strengthening rural America and how to do it. 
It is a topic of ongoing conversation, and it should be.
  But one of the institutions that have served your constituents in 
Ohio very well--Senator Durbin's in Illinois, Senator Wyden's in 
Oregon, Senator Cantwell's in Washington, and my constituents in 
Vermont--is public broadcasting. It is the radio and the television.
  One of the things that allow us to be united despite our differences 
is a shared understanding and knowledge of what is going on in our 
communities. That is what the news is about. It is not a propaganda 
machine. It is not advocating the point of view of the President or the 
point of view of the Senator from Vermont. It is giving information. At 
its most elemental level, it is giving dire information that is 
desperately needed when we have a natural disaster.
  We in Vermont had a flood on this day in 2024. We had a flood on this 
day in 2023. The institution that was so essential to response, to 
information that was really vitally necessary, that allowed people to 
share the experience and figure out what to do, was Vermont Public.
  It is important. It is not about politics; it is about the shared 
experience that people in a community need to have a sense of place to 
help them have confidence that they can count on one another, that they 
know where they live and they care about it.
  So the question I have for us in respect to the responsibility that 
you have and I have to the people we represent is, when we know that 
there are these extraordinary, globalizing pressures, the demographic 
changes that are occurring in our communities that are weakening the 
bonds of brotherhood, why would we compromise an institution that has 
served so many so well for so long? That weakens that sense of 
community, so why would we do that? There is not a good reason that we 
would do that. There is not a budgetary reason why we would do that. 
This is $1.60. If we wipe out everything, it is about a buck-60 for 
every taxpayer in the country. Seriously? A cup of coffee? What does 
that cost? A cable TV subscription? What does that cost? And at what 
price?
  That capacity to share information, to understand the experience, to 
appreciate the challenges that you face and your neighbors face--that 
is so essential for people to have the strength to carry on.
  You know, Vermont Public started just around the time I went to 
Vermont, and it was on the third floor of an aging building, the 
Windsor Constitution House. It was started by five people who knew--
they just didn't know better. They thought they could start something 
that would last, and they had no reason to think that other than they 
knew it would be beneficial to the folks in their community.
  Those five people who started from nothing included classical music 
but news right in the beginning, Vermont news. That has become a 
statewide news source that folks in Bennington, up to Derby Line, that 
folks working in the barns milking cows, that folks on the factory 
floor all have on as I visit them. And they might have FOX News on. 
They might have MSNBC on. But the news they all have on is Vermont 
Public. That has been so beneficial to Vermont.
  By the way, these news deserts that are afflicting all of us--what 
has helped us so much is that many of these extraordinarily gifted 
reporters who care about a sense of place, who have been on community 
newspapers, have now become the talent that has created this 
extraordinary institution of Vermont Public--great reporting.
  So in a democracy, we all know we need this, and it is not because it 
is going to be an agent for our point of

[[Page S4276]]

view, but it is going to be a cohesive force in the community to help 
people figure out the path forward. We have to keep this.
  You know, in Vermont, we have pretty generous folks. The drives that 
we have to raise money are pretty successful, and we get about 90 
percent of our funding through that. That is a lot higher than most 
States. But the 10 percent we will lose will cost us about $4\1/2\ 
million. That is real money for us.
  So I just ask myself the question, when I know that the things I am 
saying about our appreciation of people in rural communities are things 
that every single one of us, Republican and Democrat, knows is true, 
and every single one of us, Republican and Democrat, would assert that 
we want to strengthen those rural communities because we have direct 
experience with how powerful and wonderful the people in those 
communities are--they don't complain. They work hard. They face 
adversity. They somehow toggle it together when it is always tough to 
pay your bills at the end of the month. And then they have this one 
news source that helps them so much to be good neighbors to people they 
disagree with on many other things.
  Now, Vermont public television has also been tremendous. Vermont 
Public is both public broadcasting and public radio. They work 
together. And how many of our kids benefited from the extraordinary 
programming that helped kids share the values that are independent of 
what your political point of view is, values like goodness, values like 
tolerance, values like acceptance. That is what the program is about. 
It is values, shared values.
  You can be the most conservative person in the world; you can be the 
most liberal person in the world; you have no right to be disrespectful 
because you are ``right'' politically.
  This is an institution that has served us well at very little 
expense. It would be heartbreaking for us in Vermont to see the U.S. 
Senate give the back of the hand to those folks who, over 50 years ago, 
were inspired by a commitment to their neighbors throughout the State 
of Vermont and tell them that we want to take away their funding.
  The second point I want to make is about the institution we are part 
of. We passed a budget. We appropriated money for this. Fifty-three 
Republicans supported it, right? That was 3 months ago. What has 
changed? Nothing has changed. DOGE came. Trump came. They are looking 
for scalps. Cut funding. Get rid of USAID. But we as an institution 
have the power of the purse. We had a negotiation. We came to a mutual 
decision that spending public dollars on public broadcasting was a good 
thing, and that was a negotiated outcome that now is being torn up--
torn up.
  So what does it do for the budgetary process where we have to go 
through a process that is extremely difficult because there are 
extremely different points of view about how best to spend money and 
where to spend it? But an institution can't survive if, at the end of 
that process, the agreement made becomes the agreement that is broken. 
It erodes trust. It demeans our institution. It makes weak the bonds of 
trust that we must have amongst us to come to resolutions and defend 
them and carry them out.
  So we must not abandon the people we represent and the right they 
have to public broadcasting, and we cannot abandon the trust we must 
have in one another to keep our word. An agreement made must be an 
agreement kept.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues. I want to 
thank the Senator from Illinois for helping to organize this today. I 
thank my colleague from Oregon and my dear colleagues from the Commerce 
Committee Senator Welch and Senator Baldwin.
  We are here today to talk about an essential safety issue--it is 
really public safety--and somebody is trying to masquerade it as a 
fiscal responsibility issue.
  The proposed rescission of $1.1 billion from the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting isn't just an attack on NPR and PBS; it is a 
reckless--reckless--endangerment of 13 million Americans who depend on 
these stations for lifesaving emergency information. When the floods 
rise in the Southwest or wildfires rage in the West or hurricanes 
barrel down on the Atlantic or gulf coast, public broadcasters are 
often the only lifeline connecting families and rural communities to 
the crucial emergency information. This isn't hyperbole. These are the 
facts.
  Consider what happened in Kentucky during the historic tornado of 
December 2021. When that devastating storm carved one of the longest 
tornado tracks in our Nation's history, WKMS public radio was often the 
sole source of news as the community suffered widespread power and 
communications outages. So families huddled in the dark and relied on 
battery-powered radios to receive lifesaving information. Without WKMS, 
many would have been completely shut off.
  Look at Hurricane Helene just last year. Half a million Americans 
lost power across the Southeast; the internet failed; cell phone towers 
went dark, but Blue Ridge Public Radio kept broadcasting, providing the 
most reliable information when alternative sources simply would not 
function without electricity.
  Even in the aftermath of the unthinkable situations that happened 
this past week in Texas, Texas Public Radio stayed on the air to 
provide updates on severe weather alerts, recovery efforts, and to help 
the community mourn and rebuild together.
  The numbers are a sobering story as 79 radio stations and 33 TV 
stations across 34 States will probably have to shut down if these cuts 
are enacted.
  This chart shows the impacts that people are saying we have from our 
most vulnerable fire situations coming up. I think these are this 
year's numbers. That is in red. Our most vulnerable tornado--well, the 
Senator from Illinois knows this well. All of this in the light color, 
in the green, shows a very high--relatively high tornado risk. Then the 
last, our blue coastal areas, show a relatively high or high risk for 
hurricanes.
  What do the black dots represent? What do the dots represent in each 
of these areas? Radio stations that will no longer exist if this 
rescission comes into power. If you cut these programs, you are going 
to lose the revenue from these radio stations and risk their being shut 
down.
  Now, why would we do that?
  For me, in the central part of our State, I guarantee you that I 
don't want to do it. I don't want to do it in Yakima, WA, where KDNA 
serves the surrounding community that has a high risk of wildfires. 
Northwest Public Broadcasting maintains 24-7 fire coverage from May 
through October, tracking blazes that threaten lives and property, and 
they have expanded coverage especially to address wildfire 
communication gaps for Spanish-speaking northwesterners. This is a big 
agriculture section of our State, and we want to ensure that everybody 
receives the alerts regardless of their language.
  What the President's rescission ignores is that public broadcasters 
serve as the official resource in at least 20 States' emergency plans. 
The NPR manager--they manage the public radio satellite system--
receives emergency alert systems that are fed directly from FEMA. That 
means they are part of our emergency response. PBS operates the warning 
alert and response network, which transmitted over 11,000 emergency 
alerts last year alone. That is a 33-percent increase from the previous 
year. Let me repeat that: Eleven thousand emergency alerts went out. 
That is 11,000 times that these radio stations in these areas I am 
talking about warned people about dangerous and life-threatening risk.
  In Oklahoma, this March, the public broadcaster issued 65 fire alerts 
across 13 counties in just 10 days, and 6 evacuation orders were 
transmitted. KOSU operates the system at a cost of $751,000 annually, 
with the CPB providing crucial support. This is similar to funding like 
local-focused media in the Alaska Rural Communications Service, 
Northwest Public Broadcasting, or Harvest Media in the Great Plains. It 
would cost local broadcasters more than double of CPB's current 
contribution to replace these critical services.
  So this isn't smart budgeting. It is definitely penny wise and pound 
foolish. These will cost lives instead of saving dollars. Rural 
communities face

[[Page S4277]]

the greatest threat. We know that. We just learned this even more this 
past week with these horrific tragedies. When a severe storm knocks out 
power, when tornadoes approach, when cell phones fail, when battery-
powered car radios don't work, we need to make sure that there are 
radio stations that do.
  Since 1975, Congress has recognized that public broadcasting requires 
stability to serve communities effectively. So this isn't a partisan 
issue; it is a practical issue. We need to say that we are going to 
save public radio. When the next disaster strikes--and trust me, it 
will. I live in a very disaster-prone part of the United States, with 
all sorts of issues, from fires to volcanoes, to tsunamis, to floods, 
to lots of things. We need to be able to access potentially lifesaving 
information.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject these dangerous rescissions and 
make the investment here that is helping us save lives across the 
United States.
  I yield to my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
President Trump's plan to claw back funding that Congress approved on a 
bipartisan basis. Not only does this so-called rescissions package 
defund critical programs that Wisconsinites rely on, it fundamentally 
undermines the ability of Congress to write and pass bipartisan 
appropriations bills.
  To my colleagues who push for more bipartisanship in our work here, 
passing rescissions packages like this will only make that 
bipartisanship more difficult. It will mean more partisanship, more 
deadlock, and, ultimately, a greater risk of government shutdowns. That 
is why we have not passed a partisan rescissions bill like this package 
before.
  Like any bipartisan agreement, there are always things in annual 
appropriations bills that we don't like or that we would write 
differently, and there are things that my Republican colleagues don't 
like or they would write differently. But how can one party negotiate 
and make concessions as a part of bipartisan annual appropriations 
bills if the majority party can just walk back those agreements months 
later?
  I would like to start by calling out the harm this package will do 
for Wisconsinites in the short term--in particular, cuts to public 
broadcasting.
  One in four Wisconsinites lives in a rural community, and many rely 
on public broadcasting for local news, emergency alerts, and free 
educational programming, especially for children. Wisconsin Public 
Radio is the primary broadcast relay for Wisconsin's Emergency Alert 
System, including AMBER Alerts and lifesaving weather alerts like 
tornado and flash flood warnings. We need to look no further than the 
absolutely devastating news out of Texas to see that access to high-
quality and timely information can mean the difference between life and 
death.
  Access to local news from reporters and sources that community 
members trust is more important than ever. Stripping this funding would 
endanger local news that is already disappearing in so many Wisconsin 
communities. In 2024, almost one in five newspapers in Wisconsin shut 
down, according to a recent study. That same study found that 
Wisconsin's northernmost county, Bayfield County, had no local news 
source while 22 counties across Wisconsin had just 1 local news source.
  That is where public media plays a critical role in keeping 
Wisconsinites connected with their communities. Stations like WXPR in 
Rhinelander will be under threat if this package advances, one of the 
few news sources producing local reporting in Wisconsin's Northwoods 
and Michigan's Upper Peninsula or Radio Milwaukee, which, because of 
public funding, can broadcast local school board meetings for parents 
and families to stay in touch with what is happening in their schools. 
Without Federal support for public media, this critical information 
could disappear for Wisconsin families.
  The President's effort to take this funding from local communities 
and endanger the vital information that Wisconsinites need to stay safe 
is all because he is trying to desperately pay for his deficit bomb of 
a bill that just got rammed through Congress. That bill gives huge tax 
breaks to the wealthy and big corporations. President Trump and the 
Republicans are paying for some of it by gutting Medicaid and kicking 
families off nutrition assistance, and now they are taking away access 
to public media.
  Beyond the clawbacks included in this package, the second point I 
want to make is about what these proposed cuts will mean for Congress 
and our ability to write bipartisan appropriations bills going forward.
  It is clear to me that President Trump does not respect the 
separation of powers, but I remain hopeful that my Republican 
colleagues will stand with Democrats to protect the powers given to 
Congress by our Constitution. With this rescissions package, House 
Republicans bent their knee to the ``king'' and, once again, green-
lighted Trump's wishes. I am asking my Republican Senate colleagues not 
to follow suit because the future of bipartisan compromise depends upon 
it. The package that the White House proposed and the House approved 
claws back billions in funding that Republicans and Democrats approved 
on a bipartisan basis. If Republicans approve this package on a party-
line vote, it will fundamentally undermine Congress's ability to set 
funding levels. If Senate Republicans allow this bill to pass, we know 
that the administration will keep sending us new rescissions packages.
  The President has already put a target on the bipartisan investments 
he wants to claw back. We have seen his funding freezes from cuts to 
cancer and Alzheimer's research to withholding funding for afterschool 
programs and slashing workforce training programs. This White House 
froze funding that was approved by this very body, written and passed 
by both Republicans and Democrats.
  If my Republican colleagues approve this reversal, then what is next? 
What is to stop every future majority party from throwing away months 
of bipartisan work? What incentive will minority parties have to come 
to the table to get a bipartisan funding bill over the finish line if 
the party in power can turn around and go back on its word?
  I ask my Republican colleagues to consider what advancing this 
package will mean for the next round of negotiations that we are about 
to enter for fiscal year 2026. I believe the future of bipartisan 
compromise hangs in the balance here. I urge my colleagues to vote no 
on this rescissions package.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: 
myself for up to 5 minutes, Senator Lujan for up to 5 minutes, Senator 
Blunt Rochester for up to 5 minutes, Senator Markey for up to 8 
minutes, and Senator Ernst for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for bringing us 
together, and I rise today in strong opposition to this request that 
Congress take away funding that has already passed on a bipartisan 
basis--Democrats and Republicans working together, House and Senate.
  This proposal would gut already designated funding for public 
broadcasting and slash critical international aid funding, programs 
that have long had bipartisan support.
  As the daughter of a newspaperman, I know how important public media 
and the free press are to our country. Public broadcasting reaches 
nearly 99 percent of Americans--99 percent--with programming they don't 
have to pay for, delivering educational programming for our kids, 
coverage of local news stories, and lifesaving emergency alerts.
  I can't tell you how many times, in some of the most remote areas of 
my State, in that tip of Minnesota--I was just listening to the public 
radio station up there--they will inform you of what is happening with 
wildfires in Canada, because they wouldn't really care about that in 
certain parts of the country, even in certain parts of my own State. 
But it matters to people for emergency reasons. Or the flooding of 
roads matters to them. They don't even know if they can get from one 
place to another. We have had sudden incidences, even in those remote 
areas, where it is the source of news.
  Access to this programming is important to people in urban, suburban, 
and

[[Page S4278]]

rural areas alike. We have long agreed on a bipartisan basis to support 
the more than 1,500 local and regional public TV and radio stations 
throughout the country. I loved the map that Senator Cantwell showed us 
because it showed how these stations are distributed across the Nation, 
in what we might call the reddest of States, in the most rural areas. I 
would argue that, in some of those rural areas, they are the most 
important.
  And yet they are trying to undo this critical funding--but not all of 
them. I understand that people are working together on this, and I 
think we must continue the support.
  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting supports public TV stations 
in my State--in places like Duluth and Granite Falls and Austin--and 
supports 16 public radio stations across our State, like the ones in 
Grand Rapids, in Bemidji, and in Brainerd. We have a long history of 
producing public programming that is quite outstanding in our State, 
from ``A Prairie Home Companion,'' which many have heard of, to 
``Marketplace,'' which came out of local stations out of Minnesota.
  Public media in Minnesota has also created amazing original TV 
series, like the ones to inspire more young people to enter STEM fields 
and spotlighting our artists and our local chefs.
  And we can't forget the impact on kids. When kids are exposed to so 
much bad stuff on the internet--PBS Kids: 15 million monthly viewers. 
They don't have those kinds of bad ads that pop up that they see or the 
bad links that they see. They see things that are suitable for kids, 
and parents know it.
  All across the country, in times of crisis, public radio is essential 
to public safety. The Florida Public Radio Emergency Network provides 
geotargeted information with live forecasts, evacuation routes, and 
shelter details.
  Alabama Public TV serves as the emergency alert station hub for the 
State, broadcasting signals to all radio and TV broadcasters throughout 
the State, as well as is the primary outlet for AMBER Alerts for 
missing kids.
  Twin Cities PBS launched the Nation's first 24/7 TV channel 
broadcasting realtime emergency alerts. And, recently, in the wake of 
the horrific shooting of the State lawmakers in the State, when 
portions of our State were in shelter-in-place when a madman was out 
loose, Minnesota Public Radio kept people informed around the clock 
about how to stay safe, about where the shelter-in-place areas were, 
and what was happening with the manhunt.
  It is NPR that continues to report on State Senator John Hoffman and 
his wife Yvette, whom I got to talk with yesterday, about their 
recovery, even when the national attention has moved on. That is what 
local public TV and local radio do for us.
  This request, of course, would also deepen the damage when it comes 
to foreign aid. The President would impose major cuts to PEPFAR, the 
program that began under President George W. Bush, supported by so many 
Republicans in this Chamber, to prevent the spread of HIV-AIDS. This 
has bipartisan support. It is credited with saving over 25 million 
lives.
  The rescission would also weaken our other global health efforts, 
whether it is Ebola or malaria or bird flu. We know so many of these 
start in different places. And we can't just bury our heads in the 
sand. We actually need to take them on where they are because you just 
can't hope that no one is going to come knocking at your door--because 
it does, and it comes in the form of a very dangerous disease, or to 
your constituents who are stranded over in another place.
  Or the need to help other countries so you increase your own national 
security--we know that very much in Minnesota, with our Somalian 
population and what they have faced in Somalia.
  We know that when it comes to other countries that actually come up 
through all of it and are some of our best trading partners.
  The President's proposed cuts to funding for UNICEF are also 
misguided. We should be at the forefront of supporting bright futures 
for kids.
  This is about leadership. It is about national security. It is about 
building trading partners that are so important for us in the Midwest 
with our farmers. It is about the USAID Food for Peace Program. 
Minnesota farmers and ag businesses sold a total of $70 million to that 
program in 2024 alone. When America shares its bounty with the world 
and we do it in a smart and targeted way, we benefit.
  Hacking away at public broadcasting and public radio is not just 
shortsighted; it is dangerous. And the same for the foreign aid. These 
investments are a small cost compared to what we get out of them.
  We have made a decision--a Democratic Senate at the time, a 
Republican House at the time, together--on how we want to spend our 
funding. This is on us to stand up for, yes, the separation of powers 
but to stand up for the people in our community. I hope we can do it on 
a bipartisan basis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Illinois 
Senator Durbin for his leadership and commitment to saving public 
broadcasting and educational programming for Americans all across our 
beautiful country.
  Now, unfortunately, just yesterday in New Mexico, the Rio Ruidoso 
rose to nearly 20 feet in a matter of minutes amid heavy rainfall, 
sweeping away homes, debris, and people. The flooding claimed the lives 
of three people already, including two children. Rescue missions are 
currently underway. The same area was also ravaged by a wildfire just 
last year. Our first responders are working around the clock to protect 
their neighbors and ensure help arrives when every second counts.
  Now, if it weren't for the strict rules in the U.S. Senate on the 
floor, I would be playing audio right now--audio from the mayor of 
Ruidoso, Mayor Crawford, who was speaking to his constituents on KRUI's 
``The Mountain'' radio program.
  Now, Mayor Crawford told his residents:

       We did have over 30 swift water rescues . . . have some 
     folks taken to the hospital.
       We have been up and down trails looking at the homes that 
     have been torn up there . . . these people have been in these 
     homes for 70-plus years.
       We're issuing alerts and warnings to get to higher ground.

  These are the alerts that communities in Ruidoso and other parts of 
the country need when disaster strikes. They save lives.
  Many of us in this Chamber have witnessed the devastation caused by 
natural disasters in our own States, in our own communities. Now, 
tonight, I am praying for all those families across Texas, for a safe 
return of those who are missing and for those who lost loved ones.
  New Mexico is far too familiar with devastation and destruction that 
comes from fires and flooding and other natural disasters. Three years 
ago, we experienced one of the worst fires in our State's history, with 
the Hermit's Peak and Calf Canyon fire. A critical part of that 
response was our local radio stations and public broadcasters 
disseminating information in realtime about evacuations, shelter 
information, food drives, and State and Federal resources.
  As a matter of fact, at a time when mobile phones weren't working--
most communications were down--it was only these local radio stations, 
which were also benefiting from the transmitters from public 
broadcasting, that were able to communicate with so many constituents. 
These communications are now under attack by congressional Republicans 
and the White House.
  Senate Democrats are sounding the alarm and leading the charge to 
stop this dangerous rescission package before it harms families, 
communities, and the public broadcasting that they all rely on. From 
the moment we wake up to the time we turn in at night, New Mexicans 
rely on radio and public broadcasting to stay safe during natural 
disasters and to connect with trusted news, educational programming, 
and our favorite New Mexico musicians--sometimes even a basketball game 
or two.
  Now, over the past several weeks, I have received texts, calls, and 
people coming to my office pleading with us in the U.S. Senate to save 
public radio and public broadcasting. New Mexicans who work at radio 
stations are calling in to say that they are worried about

[[Page S4279]]

losing their jobs. From every corner of our State, New Mexicans are 
speaking out with one clear message: Do not mess with public 
broadcasting.
  Radio is one of the most dependable ways to get information out when 
disaster strikes a community. I have witnessed this firsthand. That is 
why the Federal Government must do everything it can to support 
families in crisis and ensure that they have the resources and 
information they need to stay safe. Stripping $1.1 billion from public 
broadcasting puts millions of lives at risk, including first responders 
and families who depend on emergency radio systems and public 
broadcasts to stay informed and stay safe.
  Now, I heard from a broadcaster in New Mexico this week who said:

       We are literally saving lives and finding ways to save 
     more. Please do everything you can to stop this rescission.

  Now, the White House and congressional Republicans are making 
decisions that will leave New Mexicans in the dark.
  A teacher in Albuquerque shared with me that she relies on public 
broadcasting in her classroom every day. Parents have shared that they 
use public media to teach their children about New Mexican culture, 
history, and tradition.
  These stations are central to community life. They provide unbiased 
news, local reporting, and educational programming that connects people 
to each other and to the world.
  Yet Republicans are trying to eliminate public broadcasting to strip 
communities of trusted information. If this Republican rescission 
package goes through, it will only divide us further: fewer voices, 
fewer facts, fewer connections.
  Americans are pleading not to be left in the dark. I urge my 
colleagues to listen to them and to vote against this reckless cut to 
public broadcasting.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and 
I thank, also, Senator Durbin for providing this opportunity to speak 
up against this rescissions package.
  When I ran for the Senate, I never thought that I would have to stand 
up to defend ``Mr. Rogers,'' ``Sesame Street,'' and ``Curious George,'' 
but here we are. And it is hard to believe that, about 56 years ago, 
Fred Rogers himself actually came to the Senate to advocate for PBS 
funding. And in his closing, he shared a song that he wrote to help 
teach children how to deal with their feelings of anger.
  The lyrics ask: What do you do with the mad that you feel?
  I find his words really poignant at this moment of incredible strife 
in our country because Mr. Rogers reminds us that we all have ownership 
over our actions. In his words:

       It's great to be able to stop when you've planned a thing 
     that's wrong.

  And respectfully to my colleagues across the aisle, this is wrong, 
and the American people need you to stop. Stop prioritizing big 
corporations over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  The strange thing is, this is actually a corporation that the Trump 
administration is refusing to protect, and it is the one American 
families rely on for news, for education, and for public safety and 
weather reports.
  This harmful package, which had bipartisan support--funding that was 
approved by Congress--would cut $1.1 billion from the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, which could force local TV and radio stations to 
close.
  It would gut funding for programming like PBS NewsHour, a trusted 
news and public affairs show. It would cut funding for PBS Kids, a 
trusted and safe source of children's programming.
  And speaking of trust, while only 33 percent of Congress is trusted, 
66 percent of Americans trust PBS. And who will be most hurt by these 
cuts? Families in low-income and rural areas. Why? Because not everyone 
can stream Netflix or watch Ms. Rachel on YouTube.
  In Delaware and across our country, there are thousands and thousands 
of families who still don't have access to the internet in their homes, 
which means PBS is the best, most stable source of information for 
those households. And this package could cut them off.
  These are programs with generational impact from ``Sesame Street,'' 
which has been teaching young children like my granddaughter to count 
and spell since 1969; to ``The Gilded Age,'' a show I love, that gives 
a dramatic glimpse into the history of our country.
  PBS, to me, is like a living library, granting access to art, food, 
culture, travel, and history across our Nation and the world. But it is 
not just educational; it is not just cultural. It is lifesaving.
  PBS covers 97 percent of American households, ensuring lifesaving 
alerts reach communities when other systems fail. They support our 
country's emergency alert system, including earthquake early warnings, 
amber alerts, and warnings when severe weather is imminent. This is 
vital service, and cutting funding for these programs would be 
devastating.
  My colleagues, as we embark on the 250th anniversary of our country, 
our goal should be expanding participation in this great American 
experiment through education, information, and knowledge. These form 
the foundation of an informed citizenry, and informed communities 
create a stronger democracy.
  As I close in the words of Randy Farmer, the chairman of Delaware 
Public Media, my home State's NPR affiliate, who said:

       Independent journalism is the lifeline we depend on for a 
     free and informed democracy.

  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides access to 
independent, nonpartisan journalism. To me, it is the epitome of public 
service.
  So to bring it back to where I started with Mr. Rogers, I urge my 
colleagues to stop what they have planned because it is wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak not just in 
opposition to the proposed rescission of public broadcasting funds but 
in strong support of something far more important: the survival of 
local public radio and television stations across the country.
  These local stations are lifelines. And in moments of crisis, they 
become critical tools for public safety. When hurricanes knock out 
power, when wildfires force evacuations, when floods or winter storms 
threaten entire towns, it is local public stations that deliver the 
emergency information people need in realtime.
  Public broadcasters also serve a critical role in distributing alerts 
to other commercial stations serving as an entry point for the 
information. It helps to connect the entire emergency alert system.
  Public media stations are embedded in the communities, trusted by 
their neighbors and committed to getting lifesaving information out. 
Pulling the rug out from under these stations--especially in rural 
areas where they may be the only source of local news and alerts--is a 
threat to public safety.
  That is not hypothetical. That is reality. These stations don't just 
serve in times of disaster. They serve every day by delivering local 
news that no one else is covering. In an era of media consolidation and 
nationalization, public radio and television step in. They are the ones 
at the townhall meeting, the school board meeting, the high school 
debate tournaments.
  They are covering water quality reports, zoning changes, and the 
voices of everyday Americans. These stories aren't trending on social 
media, but they matter deeply to the people who live in these 
communities.
  And then there is the service these stations provide to our youngest 
viewers and listeners. For millions of families, especially in low-
income and rural areas, local public television is the only source of 
high-quality educational programming for kids, and it is free. There 
are no ads, just storytelling that teaches kindness and curiosity and 
literacy and respect. These stations are community institutions run by 
local staff and listened to and watched by local residents.
  In fact, let's be honest, from 7 in the morning to 5 every afternoon, 
it is the children's television network, and that is why the polling 
says that 80 percent of Black and White and Latino and Asian families 
support that children's television. It is the children's television 
network from 7 in the morning

[[Page S4280]]

until 5 o'clock every single day that has been serving America for 
generations.
  When we talk about eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, we talk about cuts that are going to imperil the survival 
of many public stations in rural and underserved areas, which often 
rely on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for more than half of 
their budgets.
  We should be finding ways to strengthen these stations, not eliminate 
the modest Federal support that keeps their doors open and their 
transmitters running. And I urge my colleagues to protect local public 
broadcasting, protect the signal that reaches the farmhouse, the 
mountain top, the Tribal land, the city block. Protect the station that 
covers your community when no one else does.
  I thank each of you for your consideration on that issue.