[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 10, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3304-S3305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Rescissions

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, last week, President Trump sent to Congress 
a request to rescind $9.4 billion in fiscal year 2025 and 2024 funds 
that a majority of Republicans and Democrats had debated and had voted 
for. Those appropriations were signed into law by President Trump.
  I want to briefly discuss the impact these rescissions would have 
because of the consequences for Americans, for our relationships with 
other governments, and for millions of people around the world. Also, I 
want to speak about what this does to the appropriations power and 
authority and responsibility of Congress.
  We are seeing, from my view, an abdication of article I authority 
that belongs under the Constitution to Congress and delegating that to 
the Chief Executive. It is a violation of our separation of powers, 
which is a pillar of the checks and balances that is essential to the 
well-being of our democracy.
  First, talking about the rescissions: The White House--as it says 
about everything that we do appropriate money for--the White House 
claims it is waste, fraud, and abuse and also claims that it 
contributes to the ballooning deficit.
  There is a contradiction here because according to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, the so-called Big Beautiful Bill that the 
President is determined to pass will add $2.4 trillion to the deficit--
$2.4 trillion. And that is before we add the increased debt service 
that will be required to pay it.
  In this country, taxpayers are now on the verge of paying a trillion 
dollars annually in interest payments, and that is dead money. It 
doesn't support our military. It doesn't support our schools. It 
doesn't support scientific research. It is paid to bondholders, many of 
whom are in China.
  Most of the funds that the President is proposing to cancel were 
approved 2\1/2\ months ago for fiscal year 2025. And there has been 
absolutely no showing that any of these funds--not a single dollar--
cannot or should not be used for the purposes for which they were 
appropriated by a bipartisan majority in Congress. There has been 
absolutely no showing--none--of any waste, fraud, and abuse. These 
funds were deemed worthy of funding 2 months ago, and the President 
himself agreed. He signed it.
  This is an end run around the article I authority of Congress: We 
pass a budget, and then the Executive rescinds what it is we 
appropriated our funds for--an enormous erosion of the responsibility 
of Congress under article I.
  But let me just mention a few specific examples of the funds that are 
on the chopping block: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In the 
case of Vermont, it is called Vermont Public. It is our public radio 
station, and it is our public broadcasting. Every State has the Public 
Broadcasting System.
  In Vermont--and I know we are not unique--it is essential programming 
that knits together our community and provided information that was 
crucial, constantly, when we had floods in July of 2023 and July of 
2024. Federal funding is about 10 percent of our budget, but in many 
States it is about 40, 50 percent.
  The administration is proposing to get rid of the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting altogether. I totally and completely oppose that. 
It is the equivalent of $1.60 for each American annually. It provides a 
source of local news at a time when we have news deserts all around the 
country. The pressure on our local newspapers, on our local 
broadcasters, on our local radio stations is enormous. We need public 
broadcasting.
  I saw it in Vermont, as I mentioned, when we had the enormous benefit 
of the information we needed desperately to deal with the floods.
  My Republican colleagues in North Carolina had a similar experience. 
It was local public media markets and outlets that provided lifesaving 
emergency alert information to ensure that victims knew which roads 
they could travel, which food distribution centers were open. The 
elimination of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting puts all of this 
at risk.

  Another program said to be eliminated is PEPFAR. PEPFAR is a flagship 
HIV/AIDS prevention program. It was started by President George W. 
Bush. It has saved millions of lives. It has created enormous goodwill 
for the United States around the entire world.
  The chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee has strongly opposed 
any rescission of PEPFAR funds, and I agree with Senator Collins and 
cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone would support 
rescinding those funds that provide so much to so many for so little.
  Here are some other programs: Global Health--$500 million would be 
cut. These activities on Global Health protect child and maternal 
health. They combat HIV/AIDS and infectious diseases. We would be 
rescinding funds that fight malaria, Ebola, polio, HIV and AIDS, and 
other diseases that have been kept under control and out of the United 
States--in many cases, thanks to these programs--but could easily 
explode into full-blown epidemics.

[[Page S3305]]

  There is $800 million being cut for refugees, like those who are 
fleeing genocide in Darfur and Burma. Should we turn our back on the 
Afghan refugee folks who served our men and women in uniform during the 
course of the Afghan war?
  Another cut is $83 million for programs that have supported democracy 
through organizations like the International Republican Institute, the 
National Democratic Institute, and Freedom House. These have all 
historically received bipartisan support and strong support. This 
rescission would put them out of business, even though we kept them in 
business by a bipartisan vote just 2\1/2\ months ago.
  There is a cut of $1.65 billion for the Economic Support Fund. It may 
not necessarily be apparent on its face, but that fund account funds 
our economic assistance for Jordan, which has been an incredibly 
important ally to kind of release pressure in the Middle East, Egypt, 
Indonesia, Lebanon, and other programs that combat corruption, 
transnational money laundering, terrorist financing, human trafficking, 
and wildlife trafficking. These programs also, by the way, expand and 
build markets for U.S. exports, creating good, high-paying jobs in the 
United States of America.
  There is a cut of $460 million for assistance for Georgia, Armenia, 
Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and other former Soviet Republics. 
We want them to be our friend. We are in a contest with Russia. Walking 
away from these on-the-edge countries, fragile countries, would send 
the message that Putin wants, even while he is seeking to overtake 
Ukraine.
  There is a cut of $496 million for international disaster assistance. 
That, by the way, provides lifesaving aid for victims of natural and 
manmade disasters, from earthquakes and hurricanes to armed conflicts. 
This is the United States doing its share as the major power in the 
world to help those who have been impacted by these extreme events that 
cause immense harm and suffering to people, through no cause of their 
own.
  Also, it would cut $202 million for some specialized Agencies, 
including UNICEF that has traditionally been led by an American. And 
the Chinese love this because where we leave, they have made it no 
secret that they want to replace us.
  These are just a few of the examples of the irreparable harm these 
rescissions could cause to programs and organizations that have had 
longstanding bipartisan support. They serve our interests, and they 
promote U.S. global leadership.
  I understand the White House is looking everywhere it can--except the 
defense budget--to find revenue, and they need that revenue to offset 
the tax breaks that will go, by and large, to the richest Americans. 
But these rescissions are thoughtless, and they are reckless.
  Leadership of the United States is not solely a function of military 
power. Soft power really makes a difference, and it is a function and a 
power that we have to use our resources to act as a full force 
multiplier for democratic principles for free markets and for building 
alliances.
  If these rescissions are approved, we will be asked to explain why 
Congress did an about-face literally in a matter of 2\1/2\ months and 
ceded U.S. global engagement influence to China. None of us want that; 
all of us will get that.
  The President likes to talk about his historic mandate. He did win. 
It was 2 million votes out of 152 million cast. It was a small margin 
of victory--the smallest by a Republican Presidential candidate since 
the 1900s. My point here is not so much the size of the mandate. 
Whatever the mandate, a President should embrace the responsibility 
that he or she has to the entire country, and that includes folks who 
didn't vote for him.
  I do not believe even those who did were voting to risk the lives and 
their children's lives by cutting funds to stop the spread of Ebola or 
measles or West Nile virus. This wasn't a mandate to shut down programs 
to defend democracy where it is under assault. This was not a vote to 
withdraw from UNICEF. This was not a vote, necessarily, to turn our 
back on the world's refugees, including, in particular, Afghan refugees 
who saved the lives of our men and women in uniform.
  In the talk about wasteful spending, we are with everybody. I have 
yet to meet a Member of the U.S. Senate who is in favor of waste, 
fraud, and abuse. But we have got to identify it and then attack it, 
not assert the deficit justification for ending a program like PEPFAR 
that has proven to be efficient and effective in saving lives at very 
little cost.
  The final point I think all of us have to consider is the one I made 
at the beginning, and that is about the article I responsibility of 
Congress.
  Alexander Hamilton warned about the excessive power that could reside 
in any one branch of government and that for the well-being of our 
democracy, we had to maintain that competition between the branches, 
which required them to exercise and assert the authority that was given 
to each branch in the Constitution.
  Of course, article I gives to the Congress the power to tax and the 
power to spend, and it is absolutely essential that we do that 
carefully and wisely because our constituents are the ones who are 
going to pay the bill through taxes we assess, and they are the ones 
who are going to receive the benefits through appropriations we make.
  To abdicate that power, which is essentially what rescission would 
accommodate for the Executive, is to turn over that power to the 
President. And it is not just a matter of being this President; it is 
any President.
  In order for us to meet our responsibilities, we have to adhere to 
our constitutional responsibility under article I that we are the ones 
who are subject to the will of the people--in the House, every 2 years; 
in the Senate, every 6 years--to account for how we tax and how we 
spend. Let's not dodge by delegating that power to the Executive.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.