[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 118 (Wednesday, July 9, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4273-S4280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Rescission
This time, President Trump has come back with a new idea that I want
to discuss here today. The President has come to Congress's doorstep
with a bill called a rescission bill.
One of my colleagues, at lunch, said we need a new word. I know what
``rescission'' is. He knows what ``rescission'' is. But the American
people may not. It sounds like a foreign word, he said. It does, in a
way, but it is a legal term. And it is a request to cut funding already
appropriated.
So money appropriated by Congress, signed by a President, sent to the
administration, they decide they are not going to spend; they are going
to rescind it--a rescission bill.
So here comes President Trump's first rescission bill in his second
term. And what does he come up with? This request would cut $1.1
billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Do you listen to public radio, public TV? Are you aware of what it
does for your community?
This would eliminate any Federal assistance for the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting.
It includes $700 million, which is eliminated, to provide critical
funding for local, public media. This would devastate more than 1,500
public radio and TV stations across this country.
The bottom line: Do you think we are better off with less information
as Americans or more?
The bottom line: Do you want a choice to pick your own source of
information? Do you want that choice to include the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting?
The President says: No, we are not going to provide the assistance
for that to continue.
What it means for small towns in Downstate Illinois and all the way
up to Chicago, in the classrooms there, is that public media stations
provide essential, nonpartisan news coverage, lifesaving emergency and
weather alerts, and educational programs for our kids.
I don't know the circumstances in Texas for this terrible flooding,
and I don't want to presume anything. But as a general rule, more
emergency information available to American families is better than
worse. President Trump wants to eliminate the source, the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, and that means in many communities in my State
of Illinois and around the country, the radio will be silent, when it
might be giving a warning--a warning that extreme weather is on the
way.
For most rural communities, this local broadcasting is especially
crucial. Rural public broadcasting stations are often the only source
of local news--the only source of emergency alerts in the region.
These local stations, also, are truly independent. They reflect the
needs of the community and the people that they serve. They go out of
their way to be nonpartisan. I know because I have dealt with them for
decades.
For example, let me tell you about one station, WTVP, the local PBS
affiliate serving Central Illinois. They have a program called ``A Shot
of Ag,'' which shares stories and perspectives on farming, farm life,
and the rural-urban divide in my State.
I am proud to be a Downstater. I am proud as well to represent the
city of Chicago. Why would I want to cut off information for the
Downstate farming community that is available through public
broadcasting?
Right now, in my home State of Illinois, there are 5 counties out of
the 102
[[Page S4274]]
counties that are news deserts. Forty other counties have one news
source left for broadcast. This rescissions package would eliminate
$700 million in support of local radios and TV stations, forcing many
of these rural stations with small donor bases to close, turn them off,
and be unavailable to the people who live in the community.
In these remote Illinois counties, these stations deliver critical
services that commercial broadcasters have abandoned in less profitable
markets.
What does it mean? Once these stations are gone, they are gone. It
changes the culture, the information, the future. And in times of
crisis, that could mean, in the extreme, the difference between life
and death.
Let me explain.
Radio stations in Alaska rely on the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting to fund 98 percent of their operations. They will lose the
ability to share information about terrible weather conditions that are
threatening the people of Alaska.
In Alabama--a Senator was just here from Alabama--folks will go
without emergency alerts during tornado scares.
And just this last weekend, as I mentioned, a deadly flash flood took
the lives of over a hundred people--and counting, sadly--in rural
Central Texas. While we don't know exactly what procedures were in
place, we do know that this funding is vital for emergency alerts,
especially when disasters happen in the middle of the night.
These are critical services, but President Trump doesn't agree. In
his request to Congress, he justified cutting the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, and here is what he said:
[F]ederal spending on [the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting] subsidizes a public media system that is
politically biased and is an unnecessary expense to the
taxpayer.
If your family is warned of an extreme weather condition on the way
and you find a safe place, it is necessary. It is essential as part of
your responsibility to your family to protect the source of
information.
These publicly funded local stations educate our kids, deliver
emergency alerts, and inform our democracy. They are not an unnecessary
expense by any measure. They are a lifeline.
I would like to share a story about the NPR affiliate WGLT, a public
radio station owned by the Illinois State University, serving Normal,
IL. WGLT hosts candidate events and forums ahead of each election.
Their mission is to keep neighbors connected and talking to each other.
Its goal is to keep polarization out of local government, and it does
just that.
WGLT had 100 percent bipartisan participation from candidates in the
McLean County municipal election event. And McLean County municipal
voter turnout has increased in local elections, thanks to this public
broadcasting station. For the President to say they are politically
biased is just plain false.
Another station, WQPT, is the Quad Cities', in Illinois, only locally
owned station, serving eastern Iowa and western Illinois. It is more
than just a TV station. WQPT's First Book Club outreach program
provides five free books every year to at-risk kids by partnering with
title I classrooms. They ensure the kids whose families can't afford to
buy books or might otherwise not have access are given the opportunity
to read and learn just like every other kid.
Since the start of the program, WQPT has given away 400,000 free
books to kids from low-income, ``English as a second language,'' rural,
and special needs families. That is what Donald Trump calls
``unnecessary expense to the taxpayer.'' It could be life-changing for
that kid.
While Donald Trump says these rescissions and this rescission request
is in the spirit of improving government efficiency, I ask: Is there
anything efficient about denying information to American citizens,
about not giving American citizens a choice when it comes to
broadcasting?
I will tell you what this request for me is. It is an attack on rural
America, just like the Big Beautiful Bill, because let's not forget:
Thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill the President just signed into law,
300 rural hospitals could close around this country, closing their
doors and the critical services they offer.
With this rescission request, small towns and rural communities are
going to get hit again, essentially losing their only access to trusted
local media in many instances. These cuts could irreparably harm
communities across America that count on public media for 24/7 news,
music, education programming, and emergency alert services.
I urge my Republican colleagues. Privately, they tell me they don't
want to see the Corporation for Public Broadcasting go away. The
question is, Will they step up next week and vote that way? Many of
them represent rural areas, smalltown America. To stand up for these
people and to vote down this request to cut funding that has long
enjoyed bipartisan support, I believe that there will be bipartisan
support for this.
I urge my colleagues to come to the floor today to speak on the
subject.
And I am now going to yield the floor to my colleague Senator Wyden
from Oregon, who is next.
Senator Wyden, take it away.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank
Senator Durbin for his work on this and on so many issues exactly like
this. What Senator Durbin's career has always been about is making sure
that communities are stronger, more inclusive, and give everybody a
shot at getting ahead, and I just want to thank him for doing this and
all the times over the years that we have had a chance to work
together.
Now, as Senator Durbin has indicated, a few days ago, Republicans
rammed their budget bill through the Senate. In the coming weeks, they
will force a vote on yet another dangerous piece of legislation. Any
day now, the Senate is going to vote on a bill that will let
Republicans revoke previously approved Federal funding for key services
and key programs that our people rely on--all so they can follow
through on Donald Trump's illegal and disastrous funding freeze he
tried to implement earlier.
Under their bill, Republicans want to gut over 70 percent--7-0--70
percent of funding for public broadcasting. Now, when you hear the
words ``public broadcasting,'' a lot of people, of course, think about
the beloved characters Elmo and Big Bird, who are wonderful. I remember
that with our kids. At the same time, public broadcasting is a lot more
than that.
Over the last several years, local newspapers and radio broadcasters
have been sidelined in many parts of the country. They just don't have
the funds to keep their doors open. Many are getting bought up by
private equity funds and corporate and media conglomerates that
sanitize and repackage local reporting to fit their own media
narrative.
Oftentimes, these new owners close the doors of local papers
altogether. This is especially true, as Senator Durbin eloquently
mentioned, and a challenge in rural areas. There, broadband access is
often unreliable and often too expensive to get out far into these
communities.
Meanwhile, news is increasingly driven by the interests of big cities
sitting behind pay walls or requiring high-speed broadband to access
it.
Now, this issue is a personal one for me. I am a journalist's kid. I
grew up with a front-row seat seeing the importance of protecting
reporters and the vital work they do. That work is central to our
democracy.
My home State hasn't been immune to the changes in the media
landscape. More and more, Oregonians turn to public TV and radio
programs like Oregon Public Broadcasting for news and information. In
some of my State's most rural areas, like, say, Halfway in Eastern
Oregon, Oregon Public Broadcasting is the only broadcast station
residents can access.
These programs are literally a lifeline for Oregonians during a time
when local journalism is dying off.
Not only do these programs provide news that is trustworthy, they
also serve as linchpins in State and local emergency alert programs.
Oregon Public Broadcasting is a State primary station for our State's
emergency alert system. The broadcasters work closely with Oregon's
Office of Emergency Management and other first responders to monitor
and alert residents about
[[Page S4275]]
statewide, regional, or national emergencies.
In 2024 alone, Oregon Public Broadcasting helped notify Oregonians
about child abductions, severe storms, and flash floods. Unfortunately,
just this past weekend, we saw the devastating impact of underfunded
emergency alert systems with the deadly flash flooding in Texas.
As more details emerge, there is one area that seems to me to be
clear: More could and should have been done to bolster the local
emergency alert system to help avoid and limit the horrendous tragedies
that we have watched nightly for the last few days.
As extreme, deadly weather events like this become more and more
common, local, State, and Federal governments need to be investing in,
not shrinking, systems like public TV and radio.
These programs play such an important role in emergency situations,
helping to get the most up-to-date information to their viewers and
listeners. Instead, Republicans are watching the catastrophic situation
unfold in Texas and still plowing ahead with plans to essentially
defund these local emergency alert systems anyway.
Cutting off this funding is going to be a death sentence for one of
the most reliable sources of news and information that our people rely
on.
And rural areas that aren't served by big corporate media companies
are going to be hit the hardest. Defunding public broadcasting is going
to take news even farther away from local communities. And I know the
people of my State don't want to be dealt with by somebody from a town
on the eastern seaboard in a high rise.
I am going to close with this: Everything Republicans have done since
gaining their trifecta of power has been with the goal of helping
corporations consolidate power and profits on the backs of everybody
else. And, for me, this is a regular reality because I see it as the
ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over
taxes and trade and healthcare. This bill is no different from what we
have seen over the last few weeks in terms of corporations
consolidating power and benefiting from legislation.
If it passes, this bill is going to take a wrecking ball to the
services that Americans across this country rely on. It is going to
make communities less safe just so Republicans can brag about another
partisan ideological trophy.
So that is what we are dealing with here. When Donald Trump says: We
are going to do this, Republicans say: How high should we jump?
By passing this legislation, Republicans would send a message, once
again, that they are willing and eager to give up their congressional
power to the executive branch.
I so appreciate Senator Durbin bringing this issue to the floor of
the Senate to open a lot of eyes on what is on the line because I know
he--and we have talked about this before. We believe in a government
that gives everybody a fair shot, gives everybody a chance to get
ahead.
You have made that point today; that government is not just supposed
to be about the mighty and the powerful and the people with money. And
I thank you for this and all your wonderful service.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in supporting
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I want to talk about two
things: one, the people we represent and why it is so important that we
maintain this service that is so essential to their well-being, and
second, I want to speak about the institution we are part of and why it
is an absolute betrayal of this institution's values and procedures to
try to cut this program in this way and at this time.
I mean, first of all, all of us have public broadcasting in our
communities. One of the biggest challenges, especially in our rural
communities, is all the forces that are fraying the bonds that have
been so central to the quality of life in those communities. It is our
community hospitals that are under such financial stress. It is the
lack of manufacturing that we are trying to have come back, where there
are good jobs. It is the depopulation, where we can't get folks--there
are not enough folks to serve in the volunteer fire departments.
These are real challenges to who I think all of us here who represent
rural folks appreciate are really among the best folks we have in this
Nation. You know, it is rural folks who sign up and enlist in the
military at a far greater percentage than other parts of America, who
pay the price of wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever it may be that
the Commander in Chief and Congress send them.
We have had a discussion in here that I do believe is bipartisan
about the importance of strengthening rural America and how to do it.
It is a topic of ongoing conversation, and it should be.
But one of the institutions that have served your constituents in
Ohio very well--Senator Durbin's in Illinois, Senator Wyden's in
Oregon, Senator Cantwell's in Washington, and my constituents in
Vermont--is public broadcasting. It is the radio and the television.
One of the things that allow us to be united despite our differences
is a shared understanding and knowledge of what is going on in our
communities. That is what the news is about. It is not a propaganda
machine. It is not advocating the point of view of the President or the
point of view of the Senator from Vermont. It is giving information. At
its most elemental level, it is giving dire information that is
desperately needed when we have a natural disaster.
We in Vermont had a flood on this day in 2024. We had a flood on this
day in 2023. The institution that was so essential to response, to
information that was really vitally necessary, that allowed people to
share the experience and figure out what to do, was Vermont Public.
It is important. It is not about politics; it is about the shared
experience that people in a community need to have a sense of place to
help them have confidence that they can count on one another, that they
know where they live and they care about it.
So the question I have for us in respect to the responsibility that
you have and I have to the people we represent is, when we know that
there are these extraordinary, globalizing pressures, the demographic
changes that are occurring in our communities that are weakening the
bonds of brotherhood, why would we compromise an institution that has
served so many so well for so long? That weakens that sense of
community, so why would we do that? There is not a good reason that we
would do that. There is not a budgetary reason why we would do that.
This is $1.60. If we wipe out everything, it is about a buck-60 for
every taxpayer in the country. Seriously? A cup of coffee? What does
that cost? A cable TV subscription? What does that cost? And at what
price?
That capacity to share information, to understand the experience, to
appreciate the challenges that you face and your neighbors face--that
is so essential for people to have the strength to carry on.
You know, Vermont Public started just around the time I went to
Vermont, and it was on the third floor of an aging building, the
Windsor Constitution House. It was started by five people who knew--
they just didn't know better. They thought they could start something
that would last, and they had no reason to think that other than they
knew it would be beneficial to the folks in their community.
Those five people who started from nothing included classical music
but news right in the beginning, Vermont news. That has become a
statewide news source that folks in Bennington, up to Derby Line, that
folks working in the barns milking cows, that folks on the factory
floor all have on as I visit them. And they might have FOX News on.
They might have MSNBC on. But the news they all have on is Vermont
Public. That has been so beneficial to Vermont.
By the way, these news deserts that are afflicting all of us--what
has helped us so much is that many of these extraordinarily gifted
reporters who care about a sense of place, who have been on community
newspapers, have now become the talent that has created this
extraordinary institution of Vermont Public--great reporting.
So in a democracy, we all know we need this, and it is not because it
is going to be an agent for our point of
[[Page S4276]]
view, but it is going to be a cohesive force in the community to help
people figure out the path forward. We have to keep this.
You know, in Vermont, we have pretty generous folks. The drives that
we have to raise money are pretty successful, and we get about 90
percent of our funding through that. That is a lot higher than most
States. But the 10 percent we will lose will cost us about $4\1/2\
million. That is real money for us.
So I just ask myself the question, when I know that the things I am
saying about our appreciation of people in rural communities are things
that every single one of us, Republican and Democrat, knows is true,
and every single one of us, Republican and Democrat, would assert that
we want to strengthen those rural communities because we have direct
experience with how powerful and wonderful the people in those
communities are--they don't complain. They work hard. They face
adversity. They somehow toggle it together when it is always tough to
pay your bills at the end of the month. And then they have this one
news source that helps them so much to be good neighbors to people they
disagree with on many other things.
Now, Vermont public television has also been tremendous. Vermont
Public is both public broadcasting and public radio. They work
together. And how many of our kids benefited from the extraordinary
programming that helped kids share the values that are independent of
what your political point of view is, values like goodness, values like
tolerance, values like acceptance. That is what the program is about.
It is values, shared values.
You can be the most conservative person in the world; you can be the
most liberal person in the world; you have no right to be disrespectful
because you are ``right'' politically.
This is an institution that has served us well at very little
expense. It would be heartbreaking for us in Vermont to see the U.S.
Senate give the back of the hand to those folks who, over 50 years ago,
were inspired by a commitment to their neighbors throughout the State
of Vermont and tell them that we want to take away their funding.
The second point I want to make is about the institution we are part
of. We passed a budget. We appropriated money for this. Fifty-three
Republicans supported it, right? That was 3 months ago. What has
changed? Nothing has changed. DOGE came. Trump came. They are looking
for scalps. Cut funding. Get rid of USAID. But we as an institution
have the power of the purse. We had a negotiation. We came to a mutual
decision that spending public dollars on public broadcasting was a good
thing, and that was a negotiated outcome that now is being torn up--
torn up.
So what does it do for the budgetary process where we have to go
through a process that is extremely difficult because there are
extremely different points of view about how best to spend money and
where to spend it? But an institution can't survive if, at the end of
that process, the agreement made becomes the agreement that is broken.
It erodes trust. It demeans our institution. It makes weak the bonds of
trust that we must have amongst us to come to resolutions and defend
them and carry them out.
So we must not abandon the people we represent and the right they
have to public broadcasting, and we cannot abandon the trust we must
have in one another to keep our word. An agreement made must be an
agreement kept.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues. I want to
thank the Senator from Illinois for helping to organize this today. I
thank my colleague from Oregon and my dear colleagues from the Commerce
Committee Senator Welch and Senator Baldwin.
We are here today to talk about an essential safety issue--it is
really public safety--and somebody is trying to masquerade it as a
fiscal responsibility issue.
The proposed rescission of $1.1 billion from the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting isn't just an attack on NPR and PBS; it is a
reckless--reckless--endangerment of 13 million Americans who depend on
these stations for lifesaving emergency information. When the floods
rise in the Southwest or wildfires rage in the West or hurricanes
barrel down on the Atlantic or gulf coast, public broadcasters are
often the only lifeline connecting families and rural communities to
the crucial emergency information. This isn't hyperbole. These are the
facts.
Consider what happened in Kentucky during the historic tornado of
December 2021. When that devastating storm carved one of the longest
tornado tracks in our Nation's history, WKMS public radio was often the
sole source of news as the community suffered widespread power and
communications outages. So families huddled in the dark and relied on
battery-powered radios to receive lifesaving information. Without WKMS,
many would have been completely shut off.
Look at Hurricane Helene just last year. Half a million Americans
lost power across the Southeast; the internet failed; cell phone towers
went dark, but Blue Ridge Public Radio kept broadcasting, providing the
most reliable information when alternative sources simply would not
function without electricity.
Even in the aftermath of the unthinkable situations that happened
this past week in Texas, Texas Public Radio stayed on the air to
provide updates on severe weather alerts, recovery efforts, and to help
the community mourn and rebuild together.
The numbers are a sobering story as 79 radio stations and 33 TV
stations across 34 States will probably have to shut down if these cuts
are enacted.
This chart shows the impacts that people are saying we have from our
most vulnerable fire situations coming up. I think these are this
year's numbers. That is in red. Our most vulnerable tornado--well, the
Senator from Illinois knows this well. All of this in the light color,
in the green, shows a very high--relatively high tornado risk. Then the
last, our blue coastal areas, show a relatively high or high risk for
hurricanes.
What do the black dots represent? What do the dots represent in each
of these areas? Radio stations that will no longer exist if this
rescission comes into power. If you cut these programs, you are going
to lose the revenue from these radio stations and risk their being shut
down.
Now, why would we do that?
For me, in the central part of our State, I guarantee you that I
don't want to do it. I don't want to do it in Yakima, WA, where KDNA
serves the surrounding community that has a high risk of wildfires.
Northwest Public Broadcasting maintains 24-7 fire coverage from May
through October, tracking blazes that threaten lives and property, and
they have expanded coverage especially to address wildfire
communication gaps for Spanish-speaking northwesterners. This is a big
agriculture section of our State, and we want to ensure that everybody
receives the alerts regardless of their language.
What the President's rescission ignores is that public broadcasters
serve as the official resource in at least 20 States' emergency plans.
The NPR manager--they manage the public radio satellite system--
receives emergency alert systems that are fed directly from FEMA. That
means they are part of our emergency response. PBS operates the warning
alert and response network, which transmitted over 11,000 emergency
alerts last year alone. That is a 33-percent increase from the previous
year. Let me repeat that: Eleven thousand emergency alerts went out.
That is 11,000 times that these radio stations in these areas I am
talking about warned people about dangerous and life-threatening risk.
In Oklahoma, this March, the public broadcaster issued 65 fire alerts
across 13 counties in just 10 days, and 6 evacuation orders were
transmitted. KOSU operates the system at a cost of $751,000 annually,
with the CPB providing crucial support. This is similar to funding like
local-focused media in the Alaska Rural Communications Service,
Northwest Public Broadcasting, or Harvest Media in the Great Plains. It
would cost local broadcasters more than double of CPB's current
contribution to replace these critical services.
So this isn't smart budgeting. It is definitely penny wise and pound
foolish. These will cost lives instead of saving dollars. Rural
communities face
[[Page S4277]]
the greatest threat. We know that. We just learned this even more this
past week with these horrific tragedies. When a severe storm knocks out
power, when tornadoes approach, when cell phones fail, when battery-
powered car radios don't work, we need to make sure that there are
radio stations that do.
Since 1975, Congress has recognized that public broadcasting requires
stability to serve communities effectively. So this isn't a partisan
issue; it is a practical issue. We need to say that we are going to
save public radio. When the next disaster strikes--and trust me, it
will. I live in a very disaster-prone part of the United States, with
all sorts of issues, from fires to volcanoes, to tsunamis, to floods,
to lots of things. We need to be able to access potentially lifesaving
information.
So I urge my colleagues to reject these dangerous rescissions and
make the investment here that is helping us save lives across the
United States.
I yield to my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to
President Trump's plan to claw back funding that Congress approved on a
bipartisan basis. Not only does this so-called rescissions package
defund critical programs that Wisconsinites rely on, it fundamentally
undermines the ability of Congress to write and pass bipartisan
appropriations bills.
To my colleagues who push for more bipartisanship in our work here,
passing rescissions packages like this will only make that
bipartisanship more difficult. It will mean more partisanship, more
deadlock, and, ultimately, a greater risk of government shutdowns. That
is why we have not passed a partisan rescissions bill like this package
before.
Like any bipartisan agreement, there are always things in annual
appropriations bills that we don't like or that we would write
differently, and there are things that my Republican colleagues don't
like or they would write differently. But how can one party negotiate
and make concessions as a part of bipartisan annual appropriations
bills if the majority party can just walk back those agreements months
later?
I would like to start by calling out the harm this package will do
for Wisconsinites in the short term--in particular, cuts to public
broadcasting.
One in four Wisconsinites lives in a rural community, and many rely
on public broadcasting for local news, emergency alerts, and free
educational programming, especially for children. Wisconsin Public
Radio is the primary broadcast relay for Wisconsin's Emergency Alert
System, including AMBER Alerts and lifesaving weather alerts like
tornado and flash flood warnings. We need to look no further than the
absolutely devastating news out of Texas to see that access to high-
quality and timely information can mean the difference between life and
death.
Access to local news from reporters and sources that community
members trust is more important than ever. Stripping this funding would
endanger local news that is already disappearing in so many Wisconsin
communities. In 2024, almost one in five newspapers in Wisconsin shut
down, according to a recent study. That same study found that
Wisconsin's northernmost county, Bayfield County, had no local news
source while 22 counties across Wisconsin had just 1 local news source.
That is where public media plays a critical role in keeping
Wisconsinites connected with their communities. Stations like WXPR in
Rhinelander will be under threat if this package advances, one of the
few news sources producing local reporting in Wisconsin's Northwoods
and Michigan's Upper Peninsula or Radio Milwaukee, which, because of
public funding, can broadcast local school board meetings for parents
and families to stay in touch with what is happening in their schools.
Without Federal support for public media, this critical information
could disappear for Wisconsin families.
The President's effort to take this funding from local communities
and endanger the vital information that Wisconsinites need to stay safe
is all because he is trying to desperately pay for his deficit bomb of
a bill that just got rammed through Congress. That bill gives huge tax
breaks to the wealthy and big corporations. President Trump and the
Republicans are paying for some of it by gutting Medicaid and kicking
families off nutrition assistance, and now they are taking away access
to public media.
Beyond the clawbacks included in this package, the second point I
want to make is about what these proposed cuts will mean for Congress
and our ability to write bipartisan appropriations bills going forward.
It is clear to me that President Trump does not respect the
separation of powers, but I remain hopeful that my Republican
colleagues will stand with Democrats to protect the powers given to
Congress by our Constitution. With this rescissions package, House
Republicans bent their knee to the ``king'' and, once again, green-
lighted Trump's wishes. I am asking my Republican Senate colleagues not
to follow suit because the future of bipartisan compromise depends upon
it. The package that the White House proposed and the House approved
claws back billions in funding that Republicans and Democrats approved
on a bipartisan basis. If Republicans approve this package on a party-
line vote, it will fundamentally undermine Congress's ability to set
funding levels. If Senate Republicans allow this bill to pass, we know
that the administration will keep sending us new rescissions packages.
The President has already put a target on the bipartisan investments
he wants to claw back. We have seen his funding freezes from cuts to
cancer and Alzheimer's research to withholding funding for afterschool
programs and slashing workforce training programs. This White House
froze funding that was approved by this very body, written and passed
by both Republicans and Democrats.
If my Republican colleagues approve this reversal, then what is next?
What is to stop every future majority party from throwing away months
of bipartisan work? What incentive will minority parties have to come
to the table to get a bipartisan funding bill over the finish line if
the party in power can turn around and go back on its word?
I ask my Republican colleagues to consider what advancing this
package will mean for the next round of negotiations that we are about
to enter for fiscal year 2026. I believe the future of bipartisan
compromise hangs in the balance here. I urge my colleagues to vote no
on this rescissions package.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote:
myself for up to 5 minutes, Senator Lujan for up to 5 minutes, Senator
Blunt Rochester for up to 5 minutes, Senator Markey for up to 8
minutes, and Senator Ernst for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for bringing us
together, and I rise today in strong opposition to this request that
Congress take away funding that has already passed on a bipartisan
basis--Democrats and Republicans working together, House and Senate.
This proposal would gut already designated funding for public
broadcasting and slash critical international aid funding, programs
that have long had bipartisan support.
As the daughter of a newspaperman, I know how important public media
and the free press are to our country. Public broadcasting reaches
nearly 99 percent of Americans--99 percent--with programming they don't
have to pay for, delivering educational programming for our kids,
coverage of local news stories, and lifesaving emergency alerts.
I can't tell you how many times, in some of the most remote areas of
my State, in that tip of Minnesota--I was just listening to the public
radio station up there--they will inform you of what is happening with
wildfires in Canada, because they wouldn't really care about that in
certain parts of the country, even in certain parts of my own State.
But it matters to people for emergency reasons. Or the flooding of
roads matters to them. They don't even know if they can get from one
place to another. We have had sudden incidences, even in those remote
areas, where it is the source of news.
Access to this programming is important to people in urban, suburban,
and
[[Page S4278]]
rural areas alike. We have long agreed on a bipartisan basis to support
the more than 1,500 local and regional public TV and radio stations
throughout the country. I loved the map that Senator Cantwell showed us
because it showed how these stations are distributed across the Nation,
in what we might call the reddest of States, in the most rural areas. I
would argue that, in some of those rural areas, they are the most
important.
And yet they are trying to undo this critical funding--but not all of
them. I understand that people are working together on this, and I
think we must continue the support.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting supports public TV stations
in my State--in places like Duluth and Granite Falls and Austin--and
supports 16 public radio stations across our State, like the ones in
Grand Rapids, in Bemidji, and in Brainerd. We have a long history of
producing public programming that is quite outstanding in our State,
from ``A Prairie Home Companion,'' which many have heard of, to
``Marketplace,'' which came out of local stations out of Minnesota.
Public media in Minnesota has also created amazing original TV
series, like the ones to inspire more young people to enter STEM fields
and spotlighting our artists and our local chefs.
And we can't forget the impact on kids. When kids are exposed to so
much bad stuff on the internet--PBS Kids: 15 million monthly viewers.
They don't have those kinds of bad ads that pop up that they see or the
bad links that they see. They see things that are suitable for kids,
and parents know it.
All across the country, in times of crisis, public radio is essential
to public safety. The Florida Public Radio Emergency Network provides
geotargeted information with live forecasts, evacuation routes, and
shelter details.
Alabama Public TV serves as the emergency alert station hub for the
State, broadcasting signals to all radio and TV broadcasters throughout
the State, as well as is the primary outlet for AMBER Alerts for
missing kids.
Twin Cities PBS launched the Nation's first 24/7 TV channel
broadcasting realtime emergency alerts. And, recently, in the wake of
the horrific shooting of the State lawmakers in the State, when
portions of our State were in shelter-in-place when a madman was out
loose, Minnesota Public Radio kept people informed around the clock
about how to stay safe, about where the shelter-in-place areas were,
and what was happening with the manhunt.
It is NPR that continues to report on State Senator John Hoffman and
his wife Yvette, whom I got to talk with yesterday, about their
recovery, even when the national attention has moved on. That is what
local public TV and local radio do for us.
This request, of course, would also deepen the damage when it comes
to foreign aid. The President would impose major cuts to PEPFAR, the
program that began under President George W. Bush, supported by so many
Republicans in this Chamber, to prevent the spread of HIV-AIDS. This
has bipartisan support. It is credited with saving over 25 million
lives.
The rescission would also weaken our other global health efforts,
whether it is Ebola or malaria or bird flu. We know so many of these
start in different places. And we can't just bury our heads in the
sand. We actually need to take them on where they are because you just
can't hope that no one is going to come knocking at your door--because
it does, and it comes in the form of a very dangerous disease, or to
your constituents who are stranded over in another place.
Or the need to help other countries so you increase your own national
security--we know that very much in Minnesota, with our Somalian
population and what they have faced in Somalia.
We know that when it comes to other countries that actually come up
through all of it and are some of our best trading partners.
The President's proposed cuts to funding for UNICEF are also
misguided. We should be at the forefront of supporting bright futures
for kids.
This is about leadership. It is about national security. It is about
building trading partners that are so important for us in the Midwest
with our farmers. It is about the USAID Food for Peace Program.
Minnesota farmers and ag businesses sold a total of $70 million to that
program in 2024 alone. When America shares its bounty with the world
and we do it in a smart and targeted way, we benefit.
Hacking away at public broadcasting and public radio is not just
shortsighted; it is dangerous. And the same for the foreign aid. These
investments are a small cost compared to what we get out of them.
We have made a decision--a Democratic Senate at the time, a
Republican House at the time, together--on how we want to spend our
funding. This is on us to stand up for, yes, the separation of powers
but to stand up for the people in our community. I hope we can do it on
a bipartisan basis.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Illinois
Senator Durbin for his leadership and commitment to saving public
broadcasting and educational programming for Americans all across our
beautiful country.
Now, unfortunately, just yesterday in New Mexico, the Rio Ruidoso
rose to nearly 20 feet in a matter of minutes amid heavy rainfall,
sweeping away homes, debris, and people. The flooding claimed the lives
of three people already, including two children. Rescue missions are
currently underway. The same area was also ravaged by a wildfire just
last year. Our first responders are working around the clock to protect
their neighbors and ensure help arrives when every second counts.
Now, if it weren't for the strict rules in the U.S. Senate on the
floor, I would be playing audio right now--audio from the mayor of
Ruidoso, Mayor Crawford, who was speaking to his constituents on KRUI's
``The Mountain'' radio program.
Now, Mayor Crawford told his residents:
We did have over 30 swift water rescues . . . have some
folks taken to the hospital.
We have been up and down trails looking at the homes that
have been torn up there . . . these people have been in these
homes for 70-plus years.
We're issuing alerts and warnings to get to higher ground.
These are the alerts that communities in Ruidoso and other parts of
the country need when disaster strikes. They save lives.
Many of us in this Chamber have witnessed the devastation caused by
natural disasters in our own States, in our own communities. Now,
tonight, I am praying for all those families across Texas, for a safe
return of those who are missing and for those who lost loved ones.
New Mexico is far too familiar with devastation and destruction that
comes from fires and flooding and other natural disasters. Three years
ago, we experienced one of the worst fires in our State's history, with
the Hermit's Peak and Calf Canyon fire. A critical part of that
response was our local radio stations and public broadcasters
disseminating information in realtime about evacuations, shelter
information, food drives, and State and Federal resources.
As a matter of fact, at a time when mobile phones weren't working--
most communications were down--it was only these local radio stations,
which were also benefiting from the transmitters from public
broadcasting, that were able to communicate with so many constituents.
These communications are now under attack by congressional Republicans
and the White House.
Senate Democrats are sounding the alarm and leading the charge to
stop this dangerous rescission package before it harms families,
communities, and the public broadcasting that they all rely on. From
the moment we wake up to the time we turn in at night, New Mexicans
rely on radio and public broadcasting to stay safe during natural
disasters and to connect with trusted news, educational programming,
and our favorite New Mexico musicians--sometimes even a basketball game
or two.
Now, over the past several weeks, I have received texts, calls, and
people coming to my office pleading with us in the U.S. Senate to save
public radio and public broadcasting. New Mexicans who work at radio
stations are calling in to say that they are worried about
[[Page S4279]]
losing their jobs. From every corner of our State, New Mexicans are
speaking out with one clear message: Do not mess with public
broadcasting.
Radio is one of the most dependable ways to get information out when
disaster strikes a community. I have witnessed this firsthand. That is
why the Federal Government must do everything it can to support
families in crisis and ensure that they have the resources and
information they need to stay safe. Stripping $1.1 billion from public
broadcasting puts millions of lives at risk, including first responders
and families who depend on emergency radio systems and public
broadcasts to stay informed and stay safe.
Now, I heard from a broadcaster in New Mexico this week who said:
We are literally saving lives and finding ways to save
more. Please do everything you can to stop this rescission.
Now, the White House and congressional Republicans are making
decisions that will leave New Mexicans in the dark.
A teacher in Albuquerque shared with me that she relies on public
broadcasting in her classroom every day. Parents have shared that they
use public media to teach their children about New Mexican culture,
history, and tradition.
These stations are central to community life. They provide unbiased
news, local reporting, and educational programming that connects people
to each other and to the world.
Yet Republicans are trying to eliminate public broadcasting to strip
communities of trusted information. If this Republican rescission
package goes through, it will only divide us further: fewer voices,
fewer facts, fewer connections.
Americans are pleading not to be left in the dark. I urge my
colleagues to listen to them and to vote against this reckless cut to
public broadcasting.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and
I thank, also, Senator Durbin for providing this opportunity to speak
up against this rescissions package.
When I ran for the Senate, I never thought that I would have to stand
up to defend ``Mr. Rogers,'' ``Sesame Street,'' and ``Curious George,''
but here we are. And it is hard to believe that, about 56 years ago,
Fred Rogers himself actually came to the Senate to advocate for PBS
funding. And in his closing, he shared a song that he wrote to help
teach children how to deal with their feelings of anger.
The lyrics ask: What do you do with the mad that you feel?
I find his words really poignant at this moment of incredible strife
in our country because Mr. Rogers reminds us that we all have ownership
over our actions. In his words:
It's great to be able to stop when you've planned a thing
that's wrong.
And respectfully to my colleagues across the aisle, this is wrong,
and the American people need you to stop. Stop prioritizing big
corporations over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The strange thing is, this is actually a corporation that the Trump
administration is refusing to protect, and it is the one American
families rely on for news, for education, and for public safety and
weather reports.
This harmful package, which had bipartisan support--funding that was
approved by Congress--would cut $1.1 billion from the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, which could force local TV and radio stations to
close.
It would gut funding for programming like PBS NewsHour, a trusted
news and public affairs show. It would cut funding for PBS Kids, a
trusted and safe source of children's programming.
And speaking of trust, while only 33 percent of Congress is trusted,
66 percent of Americans trust PBS. And who will be most hurt by these
cuts? Families in low-income and rural areas. Why? Because not everyone
can stream Netflix or watch Ms. Rachel on YouTube.
In Delaware and across our country, there are thousands and thousands
of families who still don't have access to the internet in their homes,
which means PBS is the best, most stable source of information for
those households. And this package could cut them off.
These are programs with generational impact from ``Sesame Street,''
which has been teaching young children like my granddaughter to count
and spell since 1969; to ``The Gilded Age,'' a show I love, that gives
a dramatic glimpse into the history of our country.
PBS, to me, is like a living library, granting access to art, food,
culture, travel, and history across our Nation and the world. But it is
not just educational; it is not just cultural. It is lifesaving.
PBS covers 97 percent of American households, ensuring lifesaving
alerts reach communities when other systems fail. They support our
country's emergency alert system, including earthquake early warnings,
amber alerts, and warnings when severe weather is imminent. This is
vital service, and cutting funding for these programs would be
devastating.
My colleagues, as we embark on the 250th anniversary of our country,
our goal should be expanding participation in this great American
experiment through education, information, and knowledge. These form
the foundation of an informed citizenry, and informed communities
create a stronger democracy.
As I close in the words of Randy Farmer, the chairman of Delaware
Public Media, my home State's NPR affiliate, who said:
Independent journalism is the lifeline we depend on for a
free and informed democracy.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides access to
independent, nonpartisan journalism. To me, it is the epitome of public
service.
So to bring it back to where I started with Mr. Rogers, I urge my
colleagues to stop what they have planned because it is wrong.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak not just in
opposition to the proposed rescission of public broadcasting funds but
in strong support of something far more important: the survival of
local public radio and television stations across the country.
These local stations are lifelines. And in moments of crisis, they
become critical tools for public safety. When hurricanes knock out
power, when wildfires force evacuations, when floods or winter storms
threaten entire towns, it is local public stations that deliver the
emergency information people need in realtime.
Public broadcasters also serve a critical role in distributing alerts
to other commercial stations serving as an entry point for the
information. It helps to connect the entire emergency alert system.
Public media stations are embedded in the communities, trusted by
their neighbors and committed to getting lifesaving information out.
Pulling the rug out from under these stations--especially in rural
areas where they may be the only source of local news and alerts--is a
threat to public safety.
That is not hypothetical. That is reality. These stations don't just
serve in times of disaster. They serve every day by delivering local
news that no one else is covering. In an era of media consolidation and
nationalization, public radio and television step in. They are the ones
at the townhall meeting, the school board meeting, the high school
debate tournaments.
They are covering water quality reports, zoning changes, and the
voices of everyday Americans. These stories aren't trending on social
media, but they matter deeply to the people who live in these
communities.
And then there is the service these stations provide to our youngest
viewers and listeners. For millions of families, especially in low-
income and rural areas, local public television is the only source of
high-quality educational programming for kids, and it is free. There
are no ads, just storytelling that teaches kindness and curiosity and
literacy and respect. These stations are community institutions run by
local staff and listened to and watched by local residents.
In fact, let's be honest, from 7 in the morning to 5 every afternoon,
it is the children's television network, and that is why the polling
says that 80 percent of Black and White and Latino and Asian families
support that children's television. It is the children's television
network from 7 in the morning
[[Page S4280]]
until 5 o'clock every single day that has been serving America for
generations.
When we talk about eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, we talk about cuts that are going to imperil the survival
of many public stations in rural and underserved areas, which often
rely on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for more than half of
their budgets.
We should be finding ways to strengthen these stations, not eliminate
the modest Federal support that keeps their doors open and their
transmitters running. And I urge my colleagues to protect local public
broadcasting, protect the signal that reaches the farmhouse, the
mountain top, the Tribal land, the city block. Protect the station that
covers your community when no one else does.
I thank each of you for your consideration on that issue.