[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 15, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4347-S4350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Rescissions

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is astonishing, as I come to the 
floor, to listen to the Democrat minority leader. We just heard his 
comments about foreign aid keeping ``Russia and China at bay.'' If it 
were only the case.
  The minority leader has a long and spirited history of wasting 
American taxpayer dollars. Now he wants to send taxpayer dollars 
overseas to pay for climate projects and vegan food programs. 
Apparently, that is what he means when he talks about foreign aid 
keeping Russia and China at bay. He forgot to mention that he wants to 
spend half a million dollars to put electric vehicles--electric buses--
on the streets of Rwanda. He forgot to mention that he wants to spend 
$6 million on net zero cities in Mexico. He forgot to mention he wants 
to continue to spend over $100,000 for media training in Liberia.
  Mr. President, I ask, how does that keep Russia and China at bay? He 
failed to mention that he wants to continue to spend $3.3 million on 
civic engagement in Zimbabwe. He didn't say any of that because there 
is no good reason at all for that kind of wasteful Washington spending. 
None of that spending helps farmers or ranchers in my home State of 
Wyoming. None of this spending helps struggling families.
  In November, Americans voted to end this wasteful Washington 
spending. Voters got it right. Chuck Schumer gets it wrong. How many 
people went to the polls and told politicians to spend $7.4 million of 
their hard-earned money on teaching foreign countries about 
environmental racism? No one.
  Democrats love to hide behind fearmongering, and that is what the 
minority leader has done again today. Democrats never stand up and 
defend their spending on the merits. I don't see Democrats coming to 
the floor and talking about those projects that they want to see 
continued because they know it doesn't hold up to the least amount of 
public scrutiny. The American people look at this, and for them, the 
issue is quite simple. Their taxpayer dollars are being wasted and have 
been wasted for a long time. The Democrats in this body want to 
continue wasting them.
  We still have families digging out from the worst inflation in 40 
years. We have cities overwhelmed by illegal immigrants and the crime 
that they are bringing to these communities. People deserve to have 
their taxpayer dollars spent on issues that are focused on their 
priorities. President Trump sent Congress a proposal to rein in some of 
the worst wasteful spending.
  How do the Democrats respond? Well, they are threatening to shut down 
the Government of the United States. Democrats are fighting tooth and 
nail to protect programs most Americans didn't know even existed and 
they wouldn't support if they knew they existed. That is what we are 
doing today: exposing some of these terrible programs and wasteful 
Washington spending.
  It is indefensible what has happened with spending in the past with 
the last administration. If we have another Schumer shutdown--we have 
had one before--if we have another one, the American people will pay a 
heavy price. Seniors who rely on Social Security, military families 
living paycheck to paycheck, and border patrol agents will be forced to 
work without pay. Why? So the Democrats can continue to send Americans' 
taxpayer dollars to foreign countries for very questionable projects.
  I heard the minority leader lecture us before about bipartisanship 
and regular order. Well, look at what has happened. When Senator 
Schumer was the majority leader of the U.S. Senate a year ago, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee--the committee itself--passed 11 of 12 
appropriations bills. They did it by December of 2024, 1 year ago from 
now.
  Many of those bills that came through the committee received 
unanimous support by the Republicans and the Democrats on the 
committee. So what happened? Well, Republicans supported getting all 
these bills done on time through the committee on a bipartisan basis. 
What did Senator Schumer do with these bills? He was the majority 
leader. He had control of the agenda of the floor of the U.S. Senate. 
He sat on them for 225 days. He didn't bring them to the floor of the 
U.S. Senate. Oh, no. He refused to bring a single bill to the floor of 
the U.S. Senate for a single vote not because he couldn't, because he 
refused to.
  The American voters revolted, changed parties of the President, 
Senate, and the House. Now he wants to be the one to blame Republicans 
for gridlock. This is the height of hypocrisy.
  That is what we are dealing with, Mr. President. I am all for regular 
order. That is why I want to commend Senator Susan Collins for her 
leadership now as the Republican chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee in the Senate. She is working in good faith. She is committed 
to getting the job done.
  This debate is about more than dollars and cents. It is about 
priorities and about how we spend American taxpayer dollars. Americans 
didn't vote to continue the Green New Deal or even try to force it on 
the rest of the world. The American people voted to fix what is broken 
here at home. Republicans have our priorities straight. Republicans are 
focusing on making our Nation safer and more prosperous. Republicans 
are getting this country back on track.

[[Page S4348]]

  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I would like to talk today about the 
rescission bill that will be coming before us in the next couple of 
days, and I want to really cover two points: what is being done in this 
bill and how it is being done. I think they are equally important. In 
fact, I think, perhaps, how it is being done is more significant in the 
long run.
  The rescission bill talks about, essentially, two areas: public 
broadcasting and USAID. In my view, the rescission--the total 
rescission--of those two Agencies--and, by the way, it is a total 
rescission. It is not a selective cutting of certain programs or 
partially. It is the whole thing, both in the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting and USAID. The rescissions range from bad policy to 
downright dangerous, and I want to talk about that for a minute.
  Public broadcasting: Public broadcasting has a unique place in the 
United States in our media environment in that it is the only media 
form that is not driven by advertising and advertising dollars. It 
cannot be driven by ratings. It, therefore, is able to provide 
programming to the American people that they probably, almost 
certainly, would not have access to otherwise. It wouldn't simply find 
a home on commercial broadcasting because the ratings wouldn't be 
there, but that doesn't mean that the programming isn't important.
  My kids were raised on ``Sesame Street.'' It made a huge difference 
in their readiness to go to school, in their understanding of language 
and numbers, and in the whole basis of our education system. ``Sesame 
Street'' is a program that wouldn't find a home on commercial 
broadcasting. This is likely also with ``NOVA''--with nature--and, yes, 
with the ``PBS NewsHour.''
  The news business today has become more entertainment because it is 
based upon advertising and attracting viewers and, therefore, is more 
inciteful--and I mean that as C-I-T-E, not S-I-G-H-T. It is more 
inciting to people's anger and unrest in order to keep them viewing, 
whereas the ``PBS NewsHour'' is pretty much straight news. It wouldn't 
get the ratings on MSNBC or on FOX News, but it provides a source of 
news both in terms of nationally but also in each State. The local 
National Public Radio's kind of programming--all things considered--is 
essential to providing information. Now, some people may think it is 
biased. I don't think anything done by a human is going to be free of 
any and all bias, but it is pretty much straight news, and it is an 
asset to our communities, particularly to our rural communities.
  By the way, this isn't where we have Federal dollars that are 
supporting all of these initiatives. In fact, the majority of the 
support for public broadcasting, both television and radio, comes from 
the public, from contributions. So, in effect, our Federal dollars are 
matched to a very high degree by the public making their own 
contributions. That is an indication of how much the public values 
these wonderful assets to our information environment here in the 
country, and to cut off Federal funding is just an essential piece of 
the funding. A lot of it goes to the local stations. We talk about the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and we think of PBS and the 
national programs, but a lot of this funding ends up going to the local 
stations all over the country that provide essential sources of 
information to their public.
  By the way, the costs we are talking about are ridiculously low. I 
did the calculation. The relationship between the cost of the public 
broadcasting to the Federal budget is--let's see--7 cents to $10,000. 
That is the ratio: 7 cents out of $10,000. That is what we are talking 
about here, which is an almost immeasurable part of the Federal budget, 
but the return on investment is enormous. It is enormous. If this were 
a gigantic, $100 billion program, then we would be having a different 
kind of discussion; but this is a relatively small program in the 
context of the Federal budget, with a very high return on investment to 
the American people.
  Now let's talk about USAID. The majority whip was just talking about 
that, and he listed a number of projects that, I think, are 
questionable and that I don't necessarily support. USAID is an 
essential part of our foreign policy to help to stabilize unstable 
parts of the world; to extend America's soft power; to build America's 
brand; and, yes, to do some very essential projects.
  For example, in PEPFAR, which is an initiative of the George W. Bush 
administration involving AIDS, the estimate is that that initiative, 
since its beginning in 2005, has saved 25 million lives; 25 million 
lives were saved by that program that will be destroyed by this bill. 
You can't tell me that having that level of benefit to the people of 
the world does not redound to the benefit of the United States--the 
sponsor of the initiative.

  It is the same thing with malaria. The estimates are that the malaria 
program, which goes back to, I believe it was, the Obama 
administration, has prevented 1.5 billion cases of malaria--which is a 
real plague in many parts of the world--and has saved 11 million lives.
  Just those two programs together--those two USAID projects--have 
saved 36 million lives. We are talking about cutting them off. That is 
not only bad policy, it is cruel--it is cruel--and it undermines the 
credibility of this country.
  Of course, foreign aid has a lot of benefits aside from the ones that 
I have just outlined. By the way, if Congress and the administration 
want to cull the programs and say, ``We don't think this one is 
necessary. This is not a good expenditure of the people's money,'' that 
is fine, but that is not what this bill does. This bill throws out the 
beneficial baby with the questionable bath water. It is a total 
abdication of America's engagement with the world. Vaccination 
campaigns, food security, nutrition programs, disaster response, 
refugee support--these align with our American values. As I say, it is 
a relatively small part of the budget. It helps to stabilize fragile 
states, and it cuts the risk of extremism and terrorism and conflict.
  James Mattis put it best. Gen. James Mattis--one of the most 
distinguished military officers of our time--said: If you don't fund 
the State Department fully, then you are going to have to buy me more 
bullets. That puts it most succinctly. You are going to have to buy me 
more bullets because the programs of USAID tend to stabilize the world 
and mitigate the tendency toward extremism and violence.
  Since we have started to gut USAID, which was one of the first acts 
of this administration back in January and February, China has stepped 
into our shoes. I am on the Armed Services Committee and the 
Intelligence Committee, and I have seen and heard testimony that China 
is basically stepping in where we are walking away. We are handing 
Africa and Latin America to the Chinese--in some cases, to the very 
programs that we were sponsoring. They are the ones who are now 
engaging with local governments, with local leadership, and getting the 
credit for helping with these kinds of problems across the world.
  We are giving away the goodwill that is part of the American brand. 
We are giving away the opportunity to build alliances, to strengthen 
our influence, especially in competition with regimes like China and 
Russia. It also creates markets for U.S. goods and the U.S. economy. A 
significant share of the foreign aid ends up going back to businesses 
and NGOs here in the United States. So it actually contributes to our 
economic development. Countries that are receiving this U.S. aid end up 
being partners and customers of U.S. goods, products, and services.
  I mentioned it saves lives, and it aligns with our values. There is 
nothing wrong with talking about values. That is a part of what we 
should be doing.
  USAID is doing important work all over the world. I met with USAID 
people in Kabul, Afghanistan. I met with them in Jordan, where they are 
working on a water desalinization project that will literally save 
Jordan. Jordan is a country that has no water. They are facing a 
tremendous crisis, so one

[[Page S4349]]

of the projects that they are relying on is a very large water 
production facility that is supported by USAID. That is the kind of 
project that, I think, we need to continue.
  Again, I would not say that every single project they have sponsored 
is what I would have agreed upon. That is our job as oversight bodies--
to take a look at the projects that are being sponsored. The 
administration can also do that, and they can then cull the projects 
that we don't think are a useful expenditure of the government's money, 
of the people's money, but not the wholesale destruction of an Agency 
that is critical, I believe, to the foreign policy of the United 
States. So that is the picture on these rescissions.
  I believe the more important question, though, as I mentioned, is how 
this is being done. The question is, Who has the power in our 
government over appropriations? That is the fundamental question: Where 
is the power over appropriations as to where Federal dollars go?
  The answer to that question, of course, is the Congress. Article I, 
section 8: The Congress has the power of the purse.
  The President can submit his budget, and he can submit a budget that 
zeroes out USAID and that zeroes out the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, but then the way the process works is that we have 
hearings; that we have meetings with the Appropriations Committee; the 
appropriators meet and decide and discuss and debate and come to the 
floor with a bill that represents the consensus of those on the 
Appropriations Committee, and then we consider it here.
  This process that we are talking about here, this rescission process, 
turns the whole thing upside down. It basically says the administration 
can decide programs that are going to go away, and ``you can take it or 
leave it, Congress.'' I believe that it shreds the appropriations 
process. The Appropriations Committee and, indeed, this body becomes a 
rubberstamp for whatever the administration wants.
  The deeper problem is, I believe this is another step in Congress's 
abdication--abdication--of its constitutional authority, which has 
dramatically accelerated since January.
  The war power, which is article I, section 8, is an express power of 
the Constitution. We barely could have a debate about that, and the 
President attacked another sovereign country, which may have been the 
right thing to do. But there was no consultation, there was no attempt 
whatsoever to engage Congress, which has the power over declaring war, 
before that step was taken.
  Foreign trade: Again, foreign trade--``trade among nations'' is the 
term in the Constitution--is expressly delegated by the Constitution to 
the Congress. The Congress has delegated some of that authority to the 
President--to a President, to any President--under emergency 
circumstances, but this President has expanded ``emergency'' to mean 
just about anything. We learned this week that he is talking about a 
50-percent tariff against Brazil because he doesn't like the way the 
current government is treating the prior President. It has nothing to 
do with trade. It has nothing to do with the trade deficit. It has 
nothing to do with tariffs. It has to do with something that the 
President individually doesn't like. That is not the way the system is 
supposed to work.
  The up-and-down roller coaster that we have been on with regard to 
tariffs is a perfect example of why one person shouldn't have this 
authority. This should be something that is done thoughtfully and 
systematically here in the Congress under article I, section 8, to 
debate and decide what appropriate tariff levels there are across the 
world and not this helter-skelter, up and down, changing every other 
day that has not only already--we have reports today--affected 
inflation in this country and brought it up, but it has also created 
enormous uncertainty both in our markets and across the world.
  Then, finally, we see the power of the purse--Congress's fundamental 
responsibility.
  By the way, as I have talked to my colleagues--particularly my 
Republican colleagues--about this issue over the last several months, 
one of the common refrains is: Don't worry. We don't have to buck the 
President because the courts will take care of it. The courts will take 
care of us. They will protect us.
  Well, that ain't happening. The ridiculous decision of the Supreme 
Court yesterday on the Department of Education is an indication that we 
cannot count on the courts to protect us from the depredations of a 
proto-authoritarian regime. They basically said: The President can 
continue to gut the Department of Education because we are going to 
hear the case later, and maybe we will decide it when it comes.
  They did the same thing with birthright citizenship. They punted on 
the issue and allowed the authoritarian-like activities to continue 
before they get to the case in their own good time.
  So we can't count on the courts. That means we are it. The Congress, 
the Senate, has to stand up for the Constitution.
  What this bill is, is another building block in the edifice of 
authoritarianism that we are seeing built before our eyes--a building 
block in the edifice of authoritarianism.
  Why is this important? Is this just a dispute between the Congress 
and the President; politics as usual; Democrats attacking and 
undermining a Republican President; and it is just going to be all 
about the midterms and the elections of 2028? No. This is much deeper 
than that. This is much deeper than that.
  The fundamental premise of the Constitution is the separation of 
power, and the reason it is there is because history tells us that if 
power is concentrated, it is dangerous.
  Madison put it absolutely bluntly in the 47th Federalist:

       The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and 
     judiciary, in the same [set] of hands . . . may justly be 
     pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

  He used the word ``tyranny.'' Madison wasn't mincing words.
  History tells us that if you concentrate power in one set of hands, 
it is dangerous. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts 
absolutely. We know that from a thousand years of human nature. That 
was exactly what the Framers of the Constitution were trying to prevent 
by this complicated, difficult structure where there is power in the 
Congress, power in the States, power in the Executive, power in the 
courts, two Houses of Congress, vetoes, overrides. All of those checks 
and balances, which have become a kind of cliche, are there for a 
fundamental reason, and that is to protect our liberty, to protect us 
from the danger of power being concentrated in one set of hands.
  The Framers thought that they didn't have to worry about this, having 
set up the Constitution the way they did, because they said: Never will 
the Congress give up its power.
  The phrase they used was ``Ambition must be made to counteract 
ambition,'' that there would be institutional rivalry and we would 
never give up. Well, they didn't reckon on parties. They didn't reckon 
on party primaries. They didn't reckon on the Executive having such 
sway with the legislative branch that the checks and balances 
essentially have melted away.
  This bill is important because of the merits, as I talked about, 
about the danger of wiping out USAID and all the good it does in the 
world and the good it does for our country and also wiping out public 
broadcasting and all the good that it does--the irreplaceable good that 
it does--for the people in the United States. But it is also more 
dangerous than ever because it is one more step, as I mentioned, in the 
breakdown of the fundamental constitutional structure that says power 
must be divided because if it is concentrated in one set of hands--and 
I don't care whether it is Donald Trump or the Archangel Gabriel, it is 
dangerous to have the power in one set of hands. That is how we lose 
our liberty.
  Again, Madison:

       When the legislative and executive powers are united in the 
     same person or body, there can be no liberty.

  We must listen. We must listen to history, to the people who brought 
us here, the people who brought us this government, the geniuses who 
formed this structure to protect the liberty of the American people.
  It may seem like a small thing--this is one more bill, one more 
item--but it is one more step, in my view, toward empowering the 
Executive at the expense not of the Congress but of the

[[Page S4350]]

people--but of the people--of the United States.
  I don't know what it is going to take, but I hope this debate, this 
discussion, will lead us to finally say: This is a line too far. We are 
going to draw a line here, and we will establish a relationship with 
the President that is cooperative, collaborative, bipartisan, and 
sharing the power that the Constitution gives to each of us. There is 
nothing less than the liberty of our people that is at stake.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and begin a 
discussion in the appropriations process as to these two elements and 
how they should be structured and funded. That is the way it should be 
done--not by the dictate of a President, of one who is trying to 
collapse the authority in our Constitution into his own hands.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.