We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
(Calendar Days of Monday, June 30, 2025, and Tuesday, July 1, 2025) Routine Proceedings, pages S4037-4237 Measures Introduced
Two bills and one resolution were introduced, as follows: S. 2206-2207, and S. Res. 312.
Page S4083
Measures Reported
S. 278, to prohibit users who are under age 13 from accessing social media platforms, to prohibit the use of personalized recommendation systems on individuals under age 17, and limit the use of social media in schools. (S. Rept. No. 119-33) S. 93, to amend the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to address harmful algal blooms. (S. Rept. No. 119- 34)
Page S4083
Measures Passed
One Big Beautiful Bill Act: By 51 yeas to 50 nays, Vice President voting yea (Vote No. 372), Senate passed H.R. 1, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14, and after taking action on the following amendments and motions proposed thereto:
Page S4074
Adopted
Ernst Amendment No. 2372 (to Amendment No. 2360), to end unemployment payments to jobless millionaires.
Pages S4065-66
By 99 yeas to 1 nay (Vote No. 363), Blackburn Amendment No. 2814 (to Amendment No. 2360), to strike the section relating to support for artificial intelligence.
Page S4068
Kennedy Amendment No. 2790 (to Amendment No. 2360), to advance the effective date of the eligibility verification requirements from January 1, 2028, to January 1, 2027.
Page S4069
By 51 yeas to 50 nays, Vice President voting yea (Vote No. 370), Graham Amendment No. 2848 (to Amendment No. 2360), relating to reconciliation. Subsequently, a point of order was sustained against page 1, lines 3 to 5, which violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and the text was stricken.
Page S4073
By 51 yeas to 50 nays, Vice President voting yea (Vote No. 371), Thune (for Graham) Amendment No. 2360, in the nature of a substitute.
Page S4073
Rejected
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 332), Schumer motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4042
By 49 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 333), Markey motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4043
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 335), Wyden motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4044
By 48 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 336), Coons motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4045
By 49 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 337), Lujan motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4045
By 48 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 338), Reed motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4046
By 48 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 340), Blunt Rochester motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4047
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 346), Kaine motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, with instructions.
Page S4053
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 347), Blumenthal motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Armed Services, with instructions.
Page S4054
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 348), Gallego motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4054
By 48 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 349), Hassan motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4055
By 49 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 350), Duckworth motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, with instructions.
Pages S4055-56
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 351), Schiff motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, with instructions.
Page S4056
Alsobrooks motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Pages S4057-58
Kelly motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4058
Murphy motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Pages S4058-59
King motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4059
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 353), Padilla motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Pages S4059-60
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 354), Bennet motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4060
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 357), Wyden motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4063
By 50 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 358), Hirono Amendment No. 2382 (to Amendment No. 2360), to eliminate a program of qualified elementary and secondary education scholarships for public, private, or religious schools.
Page S4063
By 48 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 359), Warnock motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with instructions.
Page S4064
By 21 yeas to 79 nays (Vote No. 360), Lee Amendment No. 2745 (to Amendment No. 2360), to terminate wind and solar credits.
Pages S4064-65
By 48 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 361), Kim Amendment No. 2817 (to Amendment No. 2360), to strike a provision relating to limitations on certain Medicaid payments.
Page S4065
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 362), Sanders Amendment No. 2435 (to Amendment No. 2360), to cut the price of prescription drugs under Medicare in half and expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing. (A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the amendment, having failed to achieve 60 affirmative votes, was not agreed to.)
Page S4066
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 364), Rosen Amendment No. 2717 (to Amendment No. 2360), to maintain parity for wind and solar facilities under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Pages S4068-69
By 48 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 365), Hickenlooper Amendment No. 2719 (to Amendment No. 2360), to modify the provision terminating the residential clean energy credit.
Page S4069
By 49 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 366), Shaheen Amendment No. 2564 (to Amendment No. 2360), to repeal amendments that terminate certain clean energy credits.
Page S4070
By 50 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 367), Warner Amendment No. 2847 (to Amendment No. 2360), use of revenues from lease payments from Metropolitan Washington Airports for aviation safety improvements.
Page S4071
By 50 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 368), Van Hollen Amendment No. 2585 (to Amendment No. 2360), to strike the appropriations for the Office of Management and Budget.
Page S4072
By 45 yeas to 55 nays (Vote No. 369), Klobuchar/Kelly Amendment No. 2849 (to Amendment No. 2848), to strike a provision relating to delayed implementation of the supplemental nutrition assistance program matching funds requirements.
Page S4073
Withdrawn
Cruz (for Blackburn) Amendment No. 2602 (to Amendment No. 2360), to improve the section providing support for artificial intelligence under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program.
Pages S4066-67
Kennedy Amendment No. 2723 (to Amendment No. 2360), to permanently extend the limitation on individual deductions for certain state and local taxes.
Page S4072
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 53 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. 330), Senate agreed that the Decision of the Chair stand as the Judgment of the Senate that Thune (for Graham) Amendment No. 2360 (listed above) does not violate section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Congressional Budget Act.
Page S4040
By 53 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. 331), Senate agreed that the Decision of the Chair stand as the Judgment of the Senate that Thune (for Graham) Amendment No. 2360 (listed above) Title VII does not violate section 313(b)(1)(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
Page S4041
By 51 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 334), Senate agreed to the motion to waive with respect to the pending measure. Subsequently, the point of order that the pending measure contains an unfunded intergovernmental mandate, and violates section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, was not sustained, and thus the point of order fell.
Page S4044
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 339), Senate rejected a motion to waive section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to Ossoff Amendment No. 2696 (to Amendment No. 2360), 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. Subsequently, a point of order that the amendment would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the Finance Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority and outlays was sustained, and the amendment thus fell.
Page S4049
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 341), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected a motion to waive section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to Warren Amendment No. 2414 (to Amendment No. 2360), to strike the reduction in the funding cap for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Subsequently, a point of order that the amendment would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the Finance Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority and outlays was sustained, and the amendment thus fell.
Page S4048
By 56 yeas to 44 nays (Vote No. 342), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected a motion to waive with respect to Cornyn Amendment No. 2705 (to Amendment No. 2360), 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. Subsequently, the point of order that the Amendment violates the ``Byrd Rule'' section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, was sustained, and the amendment thus fell.
Page S4049
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 343), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected a motion to waive with respect to Merkley Amendment No. 2446 (to Amendment No. 2360), to prevent cryptocurrency corruption. Subsequently, the point of order that the Amendment violates the ``Byrd Rule'' section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, was sustained, and the amendment thus fell.
Page S4050
By 49 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 344), Senate rejected a motion to waive section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to Murray Amendment No. 2771 (to Amendment No. 2360), to strike the provision to defund Planned Parenthood. Subsequently, a point of order that the amendment would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the Finance Committee section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority and outlays was sustained, and the amendment thus fell.
Page S4051
By 53 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. 345), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected a motion to waive with respect to Blackburn Amendment No. 2401 (to Amendment No. 2360), to prohibit Federal financial participation under Medicaid and CHIP for individuals without verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status. Subsequently, the point of order that the Amendment violates the ``Byrd Rule'' section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, was sustained, and the amendment thus fell.
Page S4052
By 42 yeas to 58 nays (Vote No. 352), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected a motion to waive with respect to Kennedy Amendment No. 2772 (to Amendment No. 2360), to prohibit the use of Defense Production Act of 1950 funds without the approval of Congress. Subsequently, the point of order that the Amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, was sustained, and the amendment thus fell.
Page S4057
By 22 yeas to 78 nays (Vote No. 355), Senate rejected a motion to waive with respect to Collins Amendment No. 2812 (to Amendment No. 2360), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply a 39.6 percent individual income tax rate, and to provide additional funding and specific eligible providers under the Rural Health Transformation Program. Subsequently, a point of order that the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was sustained, and the amendment thus fell.
Page S4061
By 54 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. 356), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the motion to waive all applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of Thune (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2775 (to Amendment No. 2360), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a deduction for expenses of home educators. Subsequently, the point of order that the amendment was in violation of section 4106 of the fiscal year 2018 Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 71, of the 115th Congress, the Senate pay-as-you-go point of order, was not sustained, and the amendment thus fell.
Page S4062
Signing Authority: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that Senator Budd be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions from July 1, 2025, through July 7, 2025.
Page S4074
Griffith Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Preston Griffith, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Energy.
Page S4074
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of Tuesday, July 1, 2025, a vote on cloture will occur at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, July 7, 2025.
Page S4074
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S4074
Bedford Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Bryan Bedford, of Indiana, to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the term of five years.
Page S4075
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the nomination of Preston Griffith, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Energy.
Page S4075
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S4075
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S4075
Kupor Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Scott Kupor, of California, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management for a term of four years.
Page S4075
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the nomination of Bryan Bedford, of Indiana, to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the term of five years.
Page S4075
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S4075
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S4075
Briggs Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of William Briggs, of Texas, to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
Page S4075
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the nomination of Scott Kupor, of California, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management for a term of four years.
Page S4075
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S4075
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S4075
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, the motions to invoke cloture filed on Tuesday, July 1, 2025, ripen at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, July 7, 2025.
Page S4236
Nominations Received
Senate received the following nominations: Ademola Adewale-Sadik, of New York, to be United States Director of the African Development Bank for a term of five years. Lea Beaman, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term expiring May 18, 2030. Braden Boucek, of Tennessee, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee for the term of four years. James Caggy, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense. Arch Capito, of West Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia for the term of four years. Ryan Cote, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Information and Technology). David Courcelle, of Louisiana, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana for the term of four years. David Dunavant, of Tennessee, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee for the term of four years. Dominick Gerace II, of Ohio, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio for the term of four years. Christopher Gilbert, of Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia for the term of four years. Mitch Graves, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term expiring May 18, 2029. Alina Habba, of New Jersey, to be United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey for the term of four years. Jeff Hagood, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term of expiring May 18, 2029. Matthew Harvey, of West Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia for the term of four years. Randall Jones, of Alabama, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term expiring May 18, 2028. James Kruger, of Mississippi, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi for the term of four years. Scott Leary, of Mississippi, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi for the term of four years. James Mazol, of Virginia, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. Adam Mildred, of Indiana, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana for the term of four years. Arjun Mody, of New Jersey, to be Deputy Commissioner Social Security for the term expiring January 19, 2031. Rosario Palmieri, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor. Bryan Stirling, of South Carolina, to be United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina for the term of four years. Robert Sweeney, of Texas, to be United States Director of the Asian Development Bank, with the Rank of Ambassador. David Toepfer, of Ohio, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio for the term of four years. Frank Weiland, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs). Thomas Wheeler II, of Indiana, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana for the term of four years.
Pages S4236-37
Nomination Withdrawn
Senate received notification of withdrawal of the following nomination: Alan Boehme, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Information and Technology), which was sent to the Senate on June 16, 2025
Page S4237
Nomination Discharged
The following nomination was discharged from further committee consideration and placed on the Executive Calendar: Cheryl Mason, of North Carolina, to be Inspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs., which was sent to the Senate on May 6, 2025, from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Page S4237
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S4084-85
Record Votes
Forty-three record votes were taken today. (Total--372)
Pages S4040-57, S4059-66, S4068-74
Adjournment
Senate convened at 9 a.m. on Monday, June 30, 2025, and adjourned at 12:37 p.m., on Tuesday, July 1, 2025, until 12 noon on Thursday, July 3, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Majority Leader in today's Record on page S4236.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 116 of 656 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
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:
Pending:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
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
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.
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.
PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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. 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.
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:
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.
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: Schumer motion, No. 1, motion to commit on healthcare costs, Markey motion, and then the Klobuchar point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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. 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
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
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:
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion.
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. President, recently, a Republican colleague said regarding this bill's SNAP cuts:
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Reed motion to commit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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.
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
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. 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.
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.
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.
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:
(Mr. MARSHALL assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
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: Cornyn No. 2705, Merkley No. 2446.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47 and the nays are 53.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
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: Murray, No. 2771.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Mr. President, 30 percent of the Federal workforce is veterans, compared with only 6 percent of the
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:
He said:
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.
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. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Kaine motion to commit.
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. 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. 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: Van Hollen, No. 2584; Gallego, motion to commit; Hassan, motion to commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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
I urge my colleagues to listen to the great majority of Americans who need their costs to come down and to support my motion.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Hassan motion to commit.
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.
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:
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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 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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Schiff motion to commit.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
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. 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.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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. 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. 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?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Bennet motion to commit.
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.
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.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending measure violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 amendment be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Blackburn-Cruz No. 2602, Blackburn No. 2814, Rosen No. 2717, Kennedy No. 2790, Hickenlooper No. 2719, and Shaheen No. 2564.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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.
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 amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike the section relating to support for artificial
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
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?
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: Warner, No. 2847; Van Hollen, No. 2585; and Kennedy, No. 2723.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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.
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. 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. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
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.
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.
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.
With that, I ask for the yeas and nays and encourage a positive vote--no vote. A positive vote, meaning a no vote.
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:
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.
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. 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?
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. President, it has been a long road to get to today. More than a year ago, groups of Republican Senators and staff began meeting to lay the groundwork for extending tax relief for hard-working Americans if we were given the opportunity. Voters gave us that opportunity.
Since we took office in January, Republicans have been laser-focused on achieving the bill before us today.
Now we are here passing legislation that will permanently extend tax relief for hard-working Americans; that will spur economic growth and more jobs and opportunities for American workers; that will rebuild our military, secure our borders, unleash American energy, and cut waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs. With this legislation, we are fulfilling the mandate we were entrusted with last November and setting our country and the American people up to be safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
No bill of this size comes together without a lot of very hard work, and I want to thank the committee members and the chairmen who worked so long on this legislation. I also want to thank the committee staff and the leadership staff and the Member staff who have put an incredible number of hours in putting this bill together. None of us would be where we are without our staffs. And nowhere is this more true than on this bill, which would not have come together without a lot of very late nights, early mornings, and long afternoons of tireless work from staffers. I hope that they take pride today in what they helped achieve for the American people.
I also want to thank all the individuals who keep the Senate floor running and who worked overtime this weekend during consideration of the bill. That includes the cloakroom staff, the clerks, the doorkeepers, the Capitol Police, and the pages who stayed past the end of their session to help out. I am very, very grateful to all of them. I hope everyone manages to get some sleep.
I look forward to the House taking up and passing this historic legislation and getting it to the President's desk.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from North Carolina be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions from July 1 to July 7, 2025.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 197.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Bryan Bedford, of Indiana, to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for the term of five years.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 81.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Scott Kupor, of California, to be Director of the Office of Personnel Management for a term of four years.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 58.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of William Briggs, of Texas, to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, contrary to misinformation campaigns seeking to stop commonsense Medicaid reforms from getting to the President's desk, the One Big Beautiful Bill does not take away Medicaid from those who need it. In fact, the bill will strengthen the Medicaid program, so that it can continue to serve the vulnerable populations it was designed to serve.
Before I discuss the program integrity measures in this bill, I want to give some context on Medicaid spending. Under this bill, Medicaid will spend over $7.4 trillion over 10 years. We are only slowing the growth of Medicaid spending as Medicaid spending will still go up at about 2 to 3 percent annually, compared to 4.5 to 5 percent annually, if we don't pass this bill.
A sizable majority of Americans support efforts to stop wasteful spending that drains resources for people who truly need this safety net and puts an unfair burden on taxpayers. Between 2015 and 2024, the total amount of improper Federal Medicaid payments was over $560 billion. Some independent estimates put it closer to $1.1 trillion. We must do something about it. I am also the author of major updates to the False Claims Act, a major tool to save taxpayers money.
Since my reforms were enacted, the Federal Government has recovered more than $78 billion lost to fraud--much of it in government healthcare programs--and saved billions more by deterring would-be fraudsters. We are doing more in this bill, because taxpayers and those who rely on Medicaid deserve better. That is why we are putting an end to the billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse in healthcare programs.
Let me list off a few provisions that establish some program integrity:
These provisions alone save over $94 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO. We establish robust verification for individuals receiving premium tax credits through the Federal marketplace.
We also ensure that if someone gets more subsidization than they are allowed based on their income, the excessive subsidy amount is returned.
Last year, I pointed out to the Treasury Inspector General that excessive payments were not being recouped. Through my oversight, I discovered over 40 percent of excessive Federal marketplace subsidy payments totaled over $10 billion dating back to 2016. These excess payments were not recouped because of current safe harbor rules. This excessive waste will end in this bill and save over $60 billion, according to CBO.
We also delay costly regulations that establish one-size-fits-all rules, including for nursing homes and State Medicaid programs. I am a strong proponent of nursing home oversight and ensuring our most vulnerable senior citizens and those with disabilities have access to high-quality care. We
We also ensure Medicaid, Medicare, and Federal marketplace resources are going to Americans, instead of illegal aliens. Taxpayers expect us to prioritize vulnerable Americans and seniors in these programs. We prohibit Federal financial support under Medicaid for individuals who don't have verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status. These provisions save over $163 billion according to CBO.
When my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fearmonger and misinform what is in the bill, they must be willing to defend billions in healthcare waste, fraud, and abuse spending that total over $500 billion, as standalone provisions. As I have illustrated, we establish some commonsense program integrity measures and stop wasteful spending.
We delay costly regulations that hurt patients and providers, especially those living in rural America. We stop Medicaid and Medicare resources from going to illegal aliens. Most importantly, we preserve the Medicaid program for those who most need it.
Mr. President, section 3001 of H.Con. Res. 14, the fiscal year 2025 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise committee allocations, budgetary aggregates, and the pay-as-you-go ledger for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions.
I find that amendment Nos. 2372 and 2814, which passed earlier today, fulfill the conditions found in section 3001 of H.Con. Res. 14. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the reconciled committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the amendment.
This adjustment supersedes the adjustment I previously made for the processing of amendment No. 2360.
I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables providing details about the adjustments be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Outlays................... 23.858 151.278 283.685 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Memo--Total of All Adjustments:
Mr. President, section 3001 of H.Con. Res. 14, the fiscal year 2025 congressional budget resolution, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise committee allocations, budgetary aggregates, and the pay-as-you-go ledger for legislation considered under the resolution's reconciliation instructions.
I find that amendment No. 2848, which passed earlier today, fulfills the conditions found in section 3001 of H.Con. Res. 14. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations for the reconciled committees and other enforceable budgetary levels to account for the budgetary effects of the amendment.
This adjustment supersedes the adjustments I previously made for the processing of amendment Nos. 2372 and 2814.
I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables providing details about the adjustments be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President. I would like to thank the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee for all their hard work and dedication over this past month challenging the most egregious parts of this bill. Staff includes: Ben Ward, Mike Jones, Jill Harrelson, Josh Smith, Tyler Evilsizer, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Sion Bell, Misha Rafiq, Brian Lyons, Anna Barnes, Connor Jennings, Ethan Rosenkranz, Andrew Cobain, Anirudh Srirangam, Fiona Forrester, Lauran Pauley, Caitlin Rowley, and Alycia Cooper.
Mr. President, as the Senate debates H.R. 1, I would like to state for the record several motions I have to address a range of issues with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) that I believe the Senate must address.
The proposal currently in the bill would force states to shoulder 75 percent of administrative costs, on top of a proposal that would shift the responsibility for a portion of benefit expenditures onto States. But in States like Colorado, where the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights strictly limits state spending and revenue growth, taking on additional costs of a major Federal program like SNAP, whether through benefit expenditures or increased administrative costs, would be incredibly difficult without cutting other essential services. And Colorado is not alone. Every State faces its own budget constraints, and this kind of cost shift would destabilize the program and put food access at risk when State budgets fall short. SNAP reduces poverty, strengthens rural economies, and generates $1.50 in local economic activity for every Federal dollar invested. It is one of the most effective investments we can make to keep families fed and local economies afloat. That is why we should not be making it harder for States to afford to administer the program. We should be focused on strengthening SNAP's delivery and responsiveness, not destabilizing it.
Senator Adam Schiff also supports this motion.
These programs play a central role in the Department of Agriculture's conservation support. Not only do these programs help farmers and ranchers protect our natural resources, but they are also incredibly popular and consistently oversubscribed. The programs are not just about conservation either. They help producers stay afloat by giving practical ways to manage climate risks while keeping their operations running and providing financial stability. In Colorado, farmers and ranchers are already doing the hard work of conserving water, improving soil health, and protecting the land. These programs support their leadership with voluntary, locally driven solutions. But too often, producers ready to do more are turned away because funding runs out. That is why we made historic investments in conservation through the Inflation Reduction Act. The motion I am submitting today would ensure that every dollar that is rescinded from those investments is returned to these trusted and proven programs. Farmers and ranchers are already stepping up to protect the land and water we all depend on. The least we can do is follow through on the commitments we made to them.
My motion to commit would cut bureaucratic redtape in the reconciliation bill under consideration today, and I thank Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden for his support of my motion as well. Among the many egregious Medicaid policies in this bill is a requirement that Medicaid expansion adults must prove their eligibility every 6 months--twice as often as they do today. Like the other Medicaid cuts, this is being disguised as cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. But we know that is not what is going to happen. We know that qualified people are going to get inappropriately dropped off Medicaid for administrative reasons. Putting aside whether we think people deserve health insurance regardless of where they live or how much money they make, which incidentally I do, this policy will lead to more people being uninsured, more uncompensated care for hospitals and health clinics, and worse health outcomes. This seems in contradiction to the administration's supposed commitment to Making
Mr. President, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois and Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts support the motion to commit bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and eliminate provisions that would strike any provision that restricts borrower defense to repayment or closed school discharge. Senators Durbin and Markey know the existing challenges defrauded students and students whose schools precipitously closed face and understand the profound harm student borrowers will face without protections to receive student loan discharges for the loans they took out to attend for-profit colleges that offered no degree or a worthless degree.
Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I rise to explain Congress's intent regarding enactment of section 60002 of Senate Amendment 2360 to H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, OBBBA.
Section 60002 both repeals Section 134 of the Clean Air Act which established the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund--GGRF--and rescinds all unobligated funds that were appropriated to carry it out.
Section 134 of the Clean Air Act was established in section 60103 of the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA (Public Law 117-169). Section 60103 appropriated $27 billion to implement the GGRF nearly three times the annual appropriation for the entire EPA. Of this amount, $19.97 billion was appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a)-- to finance greenhouse gas reduction initiatives.
In passing section 60002 of the OBBBA, Congress is aware that the Environmental Protection Agency--EPA--acted on March 11, 2025, to terminate all grants awarded under the programs established in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 60103 of IRA. As a result, approximately $17 billion has been deobligated from these two programs. It is the intent of Congress that the entirety of this $17 billion-- every dollar that is unobligated from the section 60103 of the IRA--be rescinded.
Title VI of the OBBA includes rescissions from other IRA programs. But section 60002, addressing the GGRF, is the only provision in title VI that both rescinds all unobligated funding and repeals the relevant IRA section in full. This action reflects not only Congress's deep concern with reducing the deficit, but EPA's administration of the GGRF under the Biden administration, the Agency's selection of grant recipients, and the absence of meaningful program oversight.
I wrote to then EPA Administrator Michael Regan in December 2024, highlighting the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse in the GGRF program, given the Agency's admitted rush to award grants prior to the change in administration.
According to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, a recipient of $2 billion of GGRF funding reported only $100 in revenue the year before receiving its grant, meaning the Federal grant was 20 million times the organization's annual revenue. And the Washington Free Beacon reported that $5 billion went to the former employer of the EPA official then serving as director of the GGRF program.
Unlike the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the IRA provided no resources to EPA's Inspector General to exercise independent oversight on program funds. EPA's Acting Inspector General expressed concern with the GGRF, noting in testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the program's use of a financial agent to award funds was new to the EPA and that ``using third-party entities to determine how to distribute billions of dollars to additional passthrough entities reduces the Agency's control over and visibility of how the funds are spent. Furthermore, it complicates efforts to ensure compliance, manage financial risks, prevent fund misuse, and measure the outcomes of funded projects.''
Given these concerns, Congress decided to enact section 60002 to terminate the GGFR program by repealing its organic statute and rescinding all unobligated funds, including funds that had been obligated but were subsequently deobligated.
Congress agrees with EPA's March 11, 2025, action to cancel GGRF grants. EPA has indicated in court filings that, absent action by Congress, it is required to reobligate all funding from the GGRF that is deobligated through the cancellation of grants. By both repealing Section 134 of the Clean Air Act and rescinding all unobligated funding for the program, section 60002 of the OBBBA makes clear that Congress does not want the GGRF program to continue and does not want funding to be reobligated. Instead, Congress intends that all funding that was deobligated from the GGRF program by EPA's March 11, 2025, cancellation of grant awards be rescinded, and not returned to the original GGRF grantees or reobligated.
Mr. President, Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey support the Motion to Commit bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and make changes that would protect clean energy manufacturing jobs in the United States.
Mr. President, I strongly oppose this cruel bill, which will unduly harm Marylanders and people across our country. The Congressional Budget Office has found that this bill would kick a million more people off of their healthcare coverage compared to the House bill. That means this bill--a bailout for billionaires--will come at the cost of 17 million losing their healthcare coverage. More specifically, the bill would kick 246,000 Marylanders off of their health coverage. Senate Republicans are making a policy choice to harm millions of Americans to benefit the wealthiest Americans.
Altogether, the Senate bill cuts more than $1 trillion in healthcare for Americans. These cuts would hurt my home State of Maryland. In Maryland, Medicaid covers nearly 1.5 million people. That is a quarter of our population. This bill could cause over 160,000 Marylanders to lose coverage over the next 10 years. It is not beautiful to them.
More veterans live in Maryland than any other State. Thousands of veterans depend on Medicaid to cover gaps in VA coverage for essential services like mental health care and long-term services and support. It is not beautiful to them.
Undoing enrollment policies will also increase Medicare premiums for over 1 million seniors. And because they won't be able to afford essential medications, death rates among seniors will rise.
New redtape requirements in Medicaid will terminate health coverage for up to 1.5 million children nationwide, and another 400,000 children will lose coverage because of these cuts that undo improvements to enrollment processes.
I heard the fear and concern in a townhall this week. I have looked into the eyes of Marylanders terrified about losing their coverage.
The immediate coverage losses are not the only thing in this heartless bill that will imminently harm Marylanders. This bill will cause hospitals to close. Specifically, it will cause rural hospitals, children's hospitals, and hospitals that serve low-income populations across the State of Maryland to close.
Thus, this bill will have long lasting, and devasting impacts to my State of Maryland. I hereby enter into the record a motion to commit, which is very simple. It would prevent Medicaid cuts to children's hospitals, disproportionate share hospitals, and rural hospitals-- protecting the most vulnerable among us and preserving the access to care for my State of Maryland.
Mr. President, I have 1 request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, June 30, 2025, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on the following date and time: Thursday, July 3, at 12 noon; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, July 3, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, July 7; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed on July 1 ripen at 5:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of the Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, today, Senate Republicans betrayed the American people and covered this Chamber in shame. In one fell swoop, Republicans passed the biggest tax breaks for billionaires ever seen, paid for by ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans and taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids.
This is not a big, beautiful bill at all. That is why I moved on the floor to strike the title. It is now called The Act, but it is really a big, ugly betrayal.
Because of this bill, tens of millions will lose health insurance, millions of jobs will disappear, people will get sick and die, kids will go hungry, and the debt will explode to levels we have never seen--all so that billionaires and corporate special interests will get a permanent tax break. This is not what the country needs. This is not what the American people want.
And I must say this: Republicans bent and twisted and pushed the rules and the norms of the Senate to get this bill done, and they did grave damage to this Chamber when they did it--all just so they could pass tax breaks for billionaires.
Today's vote will haunt our Republican colleagues for years to come as the American people see the damage that is done. As hospitals close, as people are laid off, as costs go up, as the debt increases, they will see what our colleagues have done, and they will remember it, and we Democrats will make sure they remember it. The American people will not forget the betrayal--the betrayal--that took place today.
