[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 16, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4381-S4414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                        RESCISSIONS ACT OF 2025

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4) to rescind certain budget authority 
     proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to 
     the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, in accordance 
     with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

  Pending:

       Thune (for Schmitt) amendment No. 2853, in the nature of a 
     substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                       One Big Beautiful Bill Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the One Big Beautiful Bill provides a 
much needed boost to Main Street America and to the rural communities 
all throughout America. It makes key business provisions from the 2017 
tax law permanent to provide job creators the certainty that they need 
to plan and invest in their operations.
  A top priority of mine, the 20 percent small business deduction, is 
made permanent to benefit Main Street business owners and family 
farmers alike. Just as importantly, the bill permanently restores full 
expensing for machinery and equipment to boost domestic production.
  All of this, combined with a permanent extension of the across-the-
board lower tax rates, and the One Big Beautiful Bill is a recipe for 
economic success.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                                 H.R. 4

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will begin 
consideration of the Trump administration's rescissions package. 
Reining in waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government is a 
priority shared by President Trump and by Senate Republicans.
  I appreciate all the work the administration has done in identifying 
wasteful spending, and now it is time for the Senate to do its part to 
cut some of that waste out of the budget. It is a small but important 
step toward fiscal sanity that we all should be able to agree is long 
overdue.
  Two weeks ago, Republicans passed a historic bill, and the 
centerpiece of that bill is permanent tax relief for the American 
people. In 2017, Republicans' Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut taxes across 
the board and had our economy firing on all cylinders.
  Now, we have made those tax cuts permanent, and we are setting up our 
country for a more prosperous future. And that starts with the American 
people being able to keep more of their hard-earned money--to spend, 
save, and invest as they see fit and to pursue their American dream.
  I know my Democrat colleagues are pushing their usual lines about 
this bill: That it is about billionaires and big corporations, not 
everyday Americans. But nothing could be further from the truth.
  This bill delivers big for working families in every corner of this 
country. It is middle-income Americans who get the biggest benefits 
from the tax cuts. In fact, people making less than $50,000 a year get 
the biggest--the biggest--proportional benefit from this bill; not 
billionaires, not the 1 percent, not Fortune 500 CEOs--everyday 
Americans, people like waitresses and police

[[Page S4382]]

officers, nurses and Uber drivers, farmers and ranchers, senior 
citizens, parents trying to provide for their families. Those are the 
people who are going to get the biggest benefits from this bill.
  Before this bill passed, these Americans were facing a massive tax 
hike next year, some $2,500 for people in my home State of South 
Dakota. Now, they can be confident that their taxes won't go up, not 
next year and not in the future, because Republicans have made the 2017 
tax relief we passed permanent.
  And that includes lower tax rates for every income level; a $16,000 
standard deduction, something that is used by 90 percent of taxpayers 
in this country; and 46 million families who can claim a higher child 
tax credit--$2,200 per child--that is now linked to inflation so it 
doesn't lose its value.
  And we went further than just making the 2017 tax relief permanent. 
Seniors can now claim a new $6,000 bonus deduction. Americans can 
deduct the interest cost of a new car that is made in America. Parents 
can save for their children's futures with new investment accounts.
  Workers who earn overtime can deduct that overtime pay. That includes 
police officers, firefighters, nurses, and EMTs--people who put in 
extra hours away from their families to keep us safe and to save lives.
  Workers who earn tips can now deduct those tips, and that means 
bigger paychecks for a lot of hard-working people. One analysis 
suggests that Uber drivers alone will see their collective income rise 
by $1 billion because of the no tax on tips that we included in this 
bill. And other tipped Americans are looking forward to bigger 
paychecks.
  A waitress in Michigan said:

       I have four children. So that extra money would be pretty 
     handy . . . it would either go toward them or to my house 
     bills.

  America's farmers and ranchers are also breathing a sigh of relief 
with this bill. Amid some of the most challenging years for our 
agriculture, in recent memory, this bill bolsters the programs that 
farmers and ranchers depend on--things like crop insurance and 
commodity programs, conservation programs and disaster assistance, 
research and disease prevention. This bill addresses farmers and 
ranchers' challenges head-on.
  Then there is the tax component. Farmers and ranchers will benefit 
from the same lower tax rates that benefit working families and small 
businesses. They will be able to take advantage of permanent expensing 
for new equipment. That means that they can deduct the full cost of a 
new tractor or a combine or anything else, the year they start using 
it. And they will be able to take advantage of that provision whether 
they buy that new tractor next year, the year after that, or 10 years 
from now. Full expensing is now a permanent fixture of our Tax Code 
because of this bill.
  Our legislation also protects more family farms and ranches from the 
death tax. We raised the death tax threshold to $15 million, and it is 
linked to inflation. That means a lot more farmers and ranchers won't 
have to worry about the death tax eating up what they have spent their 
lifetime building. It means they won't have to worry about a flawed tax 
forcing their kids to sell all or part of the family farm. And it means 
farmers and ranchers won't have to spend their time and money on 
complicated estate planning to keep their operation intact after they 
die.
  One Iowa farmer summed it up when he said it this way:

       One of my goals when I started farming was to be able to 
     pass this farm on to the next generation. I'm doing that, and 
     I feel very good about that.

  We can all feel good about that.
  I know the last few years have been years of near-constant financial 
stress for working families, for farmers and ranchers, and for small 
business owners. So Republicans set out to deliver relief with this 
bill. And, more than that, we set out to permanently transform our Tax 
Code so it supports these hard-working Americans: a Tax Code that 
supports bigger paychecks and lower tax bills, that enables the 
American people to save and invest and spend more of their hard-earned 
money how they see fit, rather than sending it to Uncle Sam.

  Mr. President, that is the Tax Code that we are delivering.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                                 H.R. 4

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, Senate Republicans will press 
ahead with a terrible bill that guts local news, defunds rural radio 
stations, and makes America less safe on the world stage. And they are 
doing it all to continue funding tax breaks for billionaires.
  Today, Senate Republicans turn this Chamber into a subservient 
rubberstamp for the Executive, at the behest of Donald Trump.
  And do you want to know the most galling part of this whole bill 
Republicans are jamming through? They have absolutely no idea how OMB 
plans to apply the cuts.
  Don't take my word for it. My colleague the chairwoman of the 
Appropriations Committee, the senior Senator and former Republican 
leader from Kentucky, and my colleague from Mississippi--one who said 
he is voting for the bill--all say the bill is lacking specific 
information. And some claim they haven't even been told how the cuts 
will even be applied.
  How can we devastate programs, rip away bipartisan funding, and 
impact millions of Americans without even knowing how this bill will be 
implemented?
  Republicans embrace the credo of ``Cut, cut, cut now and ask 
questions later''--cut healthcare for 17 million Americans; cut food 
assistance to hungry kids; cut good-paying energy jobs and let the CCP, 
Chinese Communist Party, get ahead of us. Never mind the kid who will 
go hungry or the families who will lose insurance or the people who 
will get sick and die. It is all worth it, Republicans seem to think, 
so long as billionaires and special interests pay less in taxes.
  Senate Democrats, however, know that our job in this Chamber is to 
govern, is to legislate, not simply eat dirt from the Executive and ask 
for more, which is what, unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are doing.
  So, today, we are going to have a debate on the floor. Democrats are 
going to show the American people exactly what Republicans are doing. 
We will highlight, through amendments, devastating cuts to local 
television and radio stations across the country, as well as the damage 
these cuts will do to America's standing as world leader.
  We will hold the Republicans accountable through amendments wherever 
they claim they want to improve this awful bill and make it abundantly 
clear they have not materially improved this proposal.
  We will do everything in our power to mitigate the damage Rs are 
unilaterally doing to the American people.
  Now let's talk about the cuts to the CPB, the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. Millions and millions of Americans, over 10 million 
Americans--13--live in regions of the country that will be affected by 
these cuts, including millions of rural Americans and Native Tribes. 
And these cuts to local stations couldn't happen at a worse time, with 
floods and natural disasters front of mind.
  When a flood happens, when a tornado touches down, when a hurricane 
makes landfall, people need immediate, up-to-date alerts to stay safe. 
And sometimes, all too often, public broadcasting is the only way for 
people to hear what is going on. It is a matter of life and death.
  So why is Donald Trump so hell-bent on taking away funding from local 
stations that can literally save lives? And it is not just public 
broadcasting. Cuts to foreign aid will make Americans less safe; it 
will empower our adversaries. The changes Republicans say they have 
made to PEPFAR are not enough, and nobody is fooled by the small tweaks 
to this package.
  Let me be very clear: Donald Trump's hatred of foreign aid has 
nothing to do with making government more efficient, and it has nothing 
to do with eliminating waste. It is incompetence--simple incompetence--
and cruelty, cruelty based on an extremist ideology.
  Here is one glaring example. A very troubling report yesterday from 
The Atlantic saying that nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food that 
has already been purchased by the Federal

[[Page S4383]]

Government is set to expire today and will quite literally be 
incinerated instead of going to hungry kids.
  Again, this emergency food could save lives. It could prevent kids 
literally from starving to death in places like Afghanistan and in 
Pakistan. It has been sitting idly in a warehouse in Dubai for months. 
And because of the administration's incompetence, because of the 
reckless canceling of foreign aid at the start of this administration, 
these 500 tons of food will be turned into ash.
  This is just one very glaring, very troubling example of how our 
Republican colleagues are really full of it when they say they want to 
eliminate waste. They don't really care about that. They care about 
just cut, cut, cut, slash, slash, slash. Use the DOGE chain saw just, 
again, so the billionaires can get their tax breaks.
  What has happened with this food is a deep violation not simply of 
common sense, but of the moral obligation to care for the hungry and 
care for those in need, which our scriptures teach us. It is discussed, 
and it crystallizes the core issue: Republicans do not care about 
eliminating waste. They simply want to cut funding and damn the 
consequences, even if it means kids starve to death abroad. It is 
incomprehensibly mean-spirited.
  But foreign aid is not just about charity; it is strategic. It is 
about American security. And when Republicans cut foreign aid, they 
expose Americans to global health risks. They make it easier for 
terrorists to recruit people in susceptible parts of the world. They 
harm our farmers and researchers and our businesses. Cutting foreign 
aid makes it harder for U.S. companies to access new markets. And when 
the Republicans cut American aid, they essentially tell China and 
Russia: The floor is yours. It creates a vacuum, which China and Russia 
are all too eager to step into.
  Now, Republicans know all of this. They know this rescission package 
is bad, bad news, even though most of them still choose to support it. 
Listen, for example, to the words of our colleague from Nebraska:

       I am very concerned also about the emergency alerts that 
     come to many places in Nebraska only through that rural 
     radio.

  Or our colleague from South Dakota:

       To me, it's a very serious concern, and there were just a 
     number of these stations that would have lost over 90 
     [percent] of their funding.

  Consider, also, what our colleague from Alabama said with regard to 
foreign aid:

       And I think that's important, not only being the right 
     thing to do and the American way, but I also think it's 
     important, as we know, that if we leave a void it will be 
     filled by . . . our adversaries.

  Now, these are nice words, but every one of these Republicans--every 
single one of the Republicans I just quoted--voted yes yesterday, and 
actions speak louder than words. It does no good to express concern 
about legislation only to vote yes in the end.
  Again, we were not sent here by the voters to rubberstamp whatever 
Donald Trump wants. We were here to govern as a coequal branch of 
government. This bill today represents the very opposite of that. It is 
enabling Donald Trump's lawlessness. At worst, this is just one piece 
of an evil puzzle. If Republicans get away with passing this bill now, 
we will likely be back here in the near future with other rescissions 
that cut things like healthcare, like housing, like food for kids.

  Donald Trump and Russell Vought have made very clear they want to 
keep pushing additional rescission packages with even more cuts.
  So it means that healthcare is at risk, education is at risk, housing 
is at risk, research dollars are at risk, money for veterans is at 
risk. Additional aid that keeps Americans safe will be in danger.
  Remember, Donald Trump and Republican leaders reportedly struck up a 
crooked bargain: If hard-right Members of the House Freedom Caucus 
agreed to support the ``Big Ugly Betrayal,'' Donald Trump would reward 
them with even deeper cuts to healthcare and other things the hard 
right despises.
  Make no mistake, this is a short circuiting of the appropriations 
process. What the Republicans are doing through impoundment and 
rescission compromises the legislature's ability to act as a coequal 
branch of government to reach bipartisan and reasonable appropriation 
deals that represent the best interests of this country--not merely the 
partisan wishes of a small band of extremists.
  So today Republicans will push the Senate down a dangerous road. They 
will not only cede power to Donald Trump, but they will also tell the 
American people they won't fight to protect their hospitals, seniors, 
education, nutrition funding, public health, public safety, and so much 
more.
  Democrats will continue to fiercely oppose this package. We firmly 
believe in protecting public broadcasting. We firmly believe in the 
role of Congress in checking the reckless Executive. We are going to 
fight every day to protect people's healthcare, their education, the 
care our veterans need, food assistance for seniors and other kids, 
making sure the needs of working, middle-class, Middle-American 
families come first--not the billionaire class.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today having read a 
most fascinating story today in Politico. It is about what the 
Democrats' strategy is today on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and it 
seems they are coming here today to defend their wasteful Washington 
spending.
  The title of the article is ``Democrats eye changes to climate 
spending clawbacks.''
  Remember, this is a party who had a President, Joe Biden, who told 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, to prioritize climate 
over energy for the American people that was affordable, available, or 
reliable. That was Biden's priority; that is the Democrats' priority--
climate over energy available, affordable, and reliable.
  It cost them the election because they were the party of high prices 
and open borders. It doesn't seem like they have heard the message when 
I look at this, as they are trying to on the floor of the Senate today 
amend our rescissions package to go after efforts to save the American 
taxpayer dollars.
  The story is about how the Democrats are going to defend hundreds of 
millions of dollars that prop up the old worn-out Green New Deal, and 
they want to prop it up in foreign countries. We are talking about pet 
projects--one quote: net zero cities in Mexico, electric buses in 
Africa, even taxpayer-funded classes on ``environmental racism.'' That 
is what the Democrats are going to be protecting and trying to defend 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  But just weeks ago, Democrats said tax cuts for working Americans 
were unaffordable. No, they don't want to cut taxes for Americans. That 
is why every Democrat in this Chamber voted against the tax cuts that 
save people who work and get money from tips--save them $1,300. 
Democrats voted no--no, we don't want you to keep your tips; we want 
you to pay taxes on them, so we can spend money overseas on climate 
change.
  Democrats actually voted unanimously to raise taxes by $4 trillion on 
the American people. Thank goodness we were able to stop it, to block 
what the Democrats wanted to do to raise taxpayer dollars by $4 
trillion. That would hurt every working family in America. They called 
what Republicans did fiscal irresponsibility.
  Now, suddenly, money is no object. No, millions for the Green New 
Deal abroad, not 1 cent on hard-working Americans at home.
  That is the warped priority of the Democrats in this Chamber. They 
are not just liberal; this is radical thinking. This is completely out 
of touch.
  Is it surprising, then, when you see the Democrats' own pollster say 
that their party is weak, it is woke, and it is out of touch? That is 
how American voters view the Democratic Party today. Only one in three 
middle-class, working families, hard-working families, in America even 
identifies with that party anymore because they have gone so far to the 
left and so out of touch with the hard-working men and women of this 
Nation.
  The bill that we are trying to do today in the Senate is simple--to 
end wasteful Washington spending, to save taxpayers billions of 
dollars, and to restore fiscal responsibility.
  This money that we are clawing back today represents the hard work of 
American people--farmers, ranchers,

[[Page S4384]]

small business owners in Wyoming and across the country. Every dollar 
the Federal Government spends should honor their work, not waste their 
money. Taxpayer dollars should keep America safe. It should secure our 
borders. It should invest in our future. That is what we are doing here 
today.
  We should never be funding something called vegan food in Africa, 
social media mentorship in Europe, net-zero cities in Mexico. These 
programs are unaccountable, unnecessary, and truly out of touch with 
America's priorities. Americans voted for fiscal savings, not foreign 
slush funds.
  Today, the Federal Government is too big. It spends too much. The 
bill we are discussing today sends a clear message: The age of wasteful 
Washington spending has come to an end.
  Now, I have heard the Democrats fearmongering about this bill. Let me 
set the record straight. Republicans are protecting emergency alert 
systems here at home; Democrats are protecting and promoting electric 
buses in Africa.
  In November, Americans rejected this wasteful Washington spending. 
This week, Republicans are delivering on that mandate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wanted to check on the bill that we are 
considering today, H.R. 4. I just heard the Senator from Wyoming, my 
colleague and friend, talk about a lot of programs that are part of the 
Democratic alternative. This bill contains no reference whatsoever to 
the projects that he is mentioning. I don't know where they came from. 
They certainly are news to me.
  But I do know what this bill does, and I know what it is going to 
mean to Wyoming and Illinois and Oklahoma and Washington and even the 
State of Hawaii. You see, National Public Radio and public broadcasting 
are opportunities for Americans to learn information that is critical 
to their lives and their futures and their businesses and their farms.
  Do you know what the Republicans believe? Well, I can tell you. They 
want to eliminate the Federal assistance for this public broadcasting. 
That is what is in this bill.
  I have a basic premise: I believe the American people are entitled to 
information, and they are entitled to be making the choice of their 
source of that information. Public broadcasting is one choice. It is 
one I respect and many of both political parties respect.
  The notion that we are going to take what is a miniscule part of the 
Federal budget and punish the people who are involved in public 
broadcasting particularly hurts rural areas--rural areas that I 
represent in Illinois. Small towns and the part of our State that is 
limited in population count on public broadcasting not only for the 
news, not only for entertainment, but also for critical information 
when it comes to terrible emergency weather conditions. Is this 
something that we want to walk away from?
  Just think. Just a few dayS ago, this body was voting for a 
Republican proposal called the Big Beautiful Bill, which was a betrayal 
of rural areas as well. I know because the administrators of hospitals 
in downstate Illinois have come to me personally in Washington to tell 
me what the elimination of Medicaid and the reduction of Medicaid 
coverage are going to mean. For many of these hospitals, more than half 
of the patients are covered by Medicaid. More than half of the services 
that are rendered by the hospitals are paid for by Medicaid.

  A cutback in funding for that program is going to hurt individuals. 
Eleven million individuals are going to lose their health insurance in 
the United States. Millions of others will see their health insurance 
become much more expensive--dramatically more expensive. Is that what 
the American people voted for in the last election? I think not.
  Overwhelmingly, by a margin of 2 to 1, they reject this Republican 
strategy of cutting healthcare and cutting health insurance coverage in 
order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America. For 
goodness' sake, a $346,000 tax cut for Elon Musk? He won't even notice 
it. He is a multibillionaire. Yet they are risking health insurance for 
working families in rural areas to give Elon Musk a tax break. Give me 
a break. The American people believe that is unnecessary.
  Do I believe working families deserve a tax cut? You bet. Would vote 
for it in a minute. But when you are making over $400,000 a year, I 
think, frankly, you are in a situation where you shouldn't be asking 
for a tax break at this point, and that is my position.
  So that is one of the conditions that we face as we go into this 
bill.
  Eliminating government support for public broadcasting and National 
Public Radio is a setback in terms of information and choice for 
American families to decide where they want their source of 
information.
  But I do want to raise one other point that I think goes to the heart 
of our vote today on H.R. 4. The Senator from Wyoming, the Republican 
Senator, just called it wasteful Washington spending. Well, I don't 
believe this falls in the category of inefficiency, fraud and abuse, or 
waste.
  Two weeks ago, the Republicans used budget reconciliation to take 
healthcare away and raise its cost for 17 million Americans. This week, 
they are moving forward on H.R. 4 in an effort to eliminate programs 
that Elon Musk decided he wanted to take a chain saw to.
  Let's talk about Trump and Elon's first target: U.S. foreign 
assistance to the world's most vulnerable people. They have virtually 
ended USAID, which officially closed last week. What do they say about 
the program? Well, it is pretty explicit. Trump said these types of 
USAID programs are run by ``radical lunatics''--the exact words of the 
President of the United States, ``radical lunatics.'' Elon Musk--a 
great government authority--said ``a criminal organization'' that 
should ``die,'' USAID programs.
  Let's talk about these programs. You see, despite many lies spread 
about U.S. foreign aid, such programs cost about 1 percent of the 
Federal budget--1 percent--and billions of these aid dollars flow back 
into the American economy. These programs have enjoyed broad bipartisan 
support, and they help make America stronger and more influential on 
the global stage.
  Moreover, these kinds of deep cuts proposed in the current 
rescissions package threaten the long-term safety, stability, and 
leadership of our country as well as growing markets for American 
goods.
  USAID programs stem threats that don't respect borders--pandemics, 
failed states, dictatorships, and displacements. Their clean water and 
sanitation programs have provided more than 70 million people with 
first-time sustainable access to clean water in the last decade--
programs that have a 6-to-1 return in dollars saved in health, 
economic, and educational terms.
  My predecessor in the U.S. Senate and good friend was a man named 
Paul Simon from Illinois. Paul was a publisher of newspapers and an 
author who published many books. One of the last books he published 
before he passed away related to the availability of clean drinking 
water in the future of the 21st century. It was not a bestseller on the 
New York Times list, but it was certainly advice that should have been 
taken serious by all.
  When I asked Paul Simon's family what kind of memorial he wanted for 
his service in the House and the Senate and public life, they said: He 
doesn't want any statue anywhere. Do something good in his name.
  So I created the Paul Simon Water for the World Act. The Paul Simon 
Water for the World Act provided a limited amount of money by Federal 
standards to projects around developing nations that provided clean 
drinking water.
  I remember going to Port-au-Prince in Haiti--one of the most war-torn 
and devastated countries in the world. I went to a local hospital in 
Port-au-Prince, and the woman who was the head of the hospital said 
that they had a terrible problem with a cholera epidemic but it was 
under control.
  I said: What did you do?
  She said: Well, we ended up building a purification unit and a 
cistern with clean drinking water and provided it to people so they 
wouldn't get sick from cholera.

  I said: Where is it?
  She showed me. It just looked like a sewer lid out in the back of the 
hospital.

[[Page S4385]]

  I said: So where did you get the money to build it?
  She said: It was something called Paul Simon's Water for the World.
  I said: How much did it cost?
  She said: Twenty thousand dollars.
  That kind of small investment of $20,000 literally saved hundreds of 
lives in his name, and I was glad to do it. But it also spoke about the 
United States of America--that this country would take a small amount 
of money and make a dramatic difference in the lives of people around 
the world.
  I remember going to a village in India. It was a dusty, little 
village. I can't remember the name of it. There were kids eating lunch. 
What they called ``lunch'' no American kid would even consider eating. 
It was a grain formula that had been gathered with water and made 
into--it looked like a dough ball, and these kids were eating this 
dough ball with a great amount of speed because they were so hungry.
  I looked at the bag that was providing this grain for this basic 
lunch for these kids, and it said: This is a gift from the people of 
the United States of America.
  I thought to myself, when they pause before they start eating to say 
a prayer of thanks, they thank the United States for caring enough to 
feed them that day.
  Does that speak well of the United States? I think it does. It 
defines us, and it defines our values, and that is what is at stake in 
this bill. That is what we are voting on today--to cut and eliminate 
programs just like that that provide grain and foodstuffs around the 
world to the poorest people on Earth.
  USAID programs stem threats that don't respect borders. Clean water 
and sanitations programs have provided more than 70 million people with 
first-time sustainable access to clean water in the last decade--
programs that have a 6-to-1 return in dollars saved.
  Doctors Without Borders is an amazing organization. They have doctors 
in 70 different countries around the world. They provide medical care 
in conflict zones, natural disasters, and epidemics. They are already 
seeing that vital U.S.-funded programs that provide vaccinations and 
basic health, protection for those caught in war, and nutrition are 
being slashed.
  The CEO of Doctors Without Borders, Avril Benoit, recently noted:

       It is shocking to see the [United States] abandon its 
     leadership in advancing global health and humanitarian 
     efforts.

  Then she went on to say:

       U.S. assistance has been a lifeline for millions of people, 
     and yanking this support will lead to more preventable deaths 
     and untold suffering around the world.

  That is what we are voting for on the floor of the Senate today. This 
isn't just some administrative battle that doesn't have human 
consequences. This is a matter of life and death for some of the 
poorest people on Earth. This is the reputation of the United States as 
to whether we care.
  This is why American defense officials have even told us for 
generations that they support these programs. As they say, it is far 
cheaper than military intervention and wildly effective. Trump's own 
first-term Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said that if we don't fund 
foreign aid, ``then I need to buy more bullets.''
  So let's be clear what we are being asked to do today: rip funding 
away from historically bipartisan programs that keep the most 
vulnerable populations and fragile nations from slipping into chaos.
  In addition to weakening our standing abroad, these proposed 
rescissions would hurt Americans here at home. I hope my colleagues 
will pause and think for a moment of what the consequences will be.
  This publication was sent to me at my home in Springfield last week. 
It is from Doctors Without Borders. It goes through pages and pages of 
the programs that have been eliminated because of the Trump 
administration's decision that foreign aid is for suckers. This 
President believes it is. Some of the people voting today may believe 
it as well. I don't at all.
  When it comes to malnutrition in Somalia, Doctors Without Borders 
reports that our cutback in funding has meant that patients are 
traveling as far as 120 miles for care because of the closure of 
facilities nearby.
  The HIV program--I don't know what it will end up looking like, but 
originally it was proposed to eliminate the PEPFAR program. Now, I 
didn't have a long list of projects that I worked with President George 
W. Bush on, but PEPFAR was one of them. PEPFAR was a program that 
addressed the HIV/AIDS epidemic directly, and it saved lives. Some 
estimate it saved 25 million lives.
  I want to salute President George W. Bush and all of those who 
supported it on both sides of the aisle. You see, sensible foreign aid 
used to be a bipartisan undertaking, and President Bush proved that 
over and over again.
  I can go through the long list of projects around the world that 
Doctors Without Borders has noted are being cut back because of this 
decision, but I want to make this more direct and more personal.
  This morning, one of my colleagues, Chris Coons of Delaware, who has 
been a leader in this field of foreign assistance, spoke to the Prayer 
Breakfast in the U.S. Senate. I am not going to quote him or try to. 
But I will tell you this, his message was clear that he believes as a 
man of faith, he has a responsibility, a responsibility that goes 
beyond his family, even beyond his country. He has a responsibility to 
his fellow man. He believes this decision by the Senate today will 
decide whether or not we as a nation share that sense of 
responsibility.
  I believe it speaks well of the United States that we come together 
and take 1 percent of our budget and spend it for the poorest people on 
Earth. And that is why I believe it is critically important today that 
we defeat this effort to rescind this spending in H.R. 4.
  Consequences of these rescissions will prove to be devastating here 
and across the globe. I urge my colleagues to stand up against the 
mindless cuts. Predictably, President Trump said:

       It is important that all Republicans adhere to my 
     rescissions package bill.

  Then he said:

       Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to 
     continue broadcasting--

  Referring to PBS--

       will not have my support or endorsement.

  It is a political threat. There is no doubt about it. There is a risk 
for the Republicans who stand up for principle. The President has 
turned this vote away from a discussion on merits of the cuts--of which 
there are none--into a loyalty test, personally, because Donald Trump 
doesn't care about the impact of these cuts. He only cares about the 
bended knee, the craven Congressman, the servile Senator.
  We need four Republicans today--four--to stand up and vote a matter 
of conscience. I hope they will join us to preserve the strategic 
bipartisan programs and vote no on this rescissions bill.
  Please, today, to my colleagues on both sides, give a voice to the 
poorest children on Earth who survive only because of a caring nation 
called America. Our reputation in the world is at stake. Let's do the 
right thing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, Republicans were jamming 
through the most expensive bill in the history of the country. And now, 
they say they are worried about the debt. Two weeks ago, Republicans 
said $4 trillion in tax cuts for the richest people in the world was 
nothing, literally. And now, they are saying a truly tiny fraction of 
that for rural radio is just too much.
  So I have to ask: Is this a joke? Are they really that bad at math? 
First, Republicans were saying trillions in tax cuts were free. Get 
real. And now they are pretending to be fiscal hawks by shutting down 
local news and letting epidemics go unchecked around the world.
  Here is another math lesson for my colleagues. Republicans could cut 
every dollar ever spent on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
since it was created down to the last dime, and it still would not 
cover the cost of the bill Republicans just jammed through. Republicans 
could actually cut every dollar we have spent on foreign aid since 
World War II, and that would still fall short compared to the cost of 
the Republican tax cuts. Republicans could even cut the amount in the 
first rescissions bill every single day for a year, and it still would 
not equal their tax cuts to help their rich donors.

[[Page S4386]]

  So make no mistake, if Republicans choose to do Trump's bidding, if 
they push through this package to rip away funding for emergency alerts 
and global health programs, it is not because they take the debt 
seriously. And that will be just as true for the next package because, 
let's be clear, if Republicans go along with this package--despite the 
fact that they clearly have issues with it and despite the fact Russ 
Vought has refused to answer the most basic questions, even from the 
Republican chair of the Appropriations Committee, about which programs 
he is going to cut--if all of that is not enough to give Republicans 
just some pause and they let Russ Vought steamroll them through this 
package, don't be surprised when he sends more cuts down the pike. It 
could be medical research and afterschool programs, maybe heating 
assistance, workplace safety, road maintenance. Everything is going to 
be on the chopping block. And all our time here in the Senate is going 
to be spent on those requests.
  Here is the kicker. No matter how many rescissions Russ Vought sends, 
no matter how many rescissions Republicans just roll over and let pass, 
they will never offset the trillions in tax cuts they just passed 
without blinking an eye because you could rescind the entire fiscal 
year 2025 spending bill twice over, and it still would not cover the $4 
trillion in tax cuts Republicans just showered on the richest people in 
this country.
  So however this vote goes, expect to hear more from me on this every 
time Republicans try to pretend that we do not have enough money for 
childcare or medical research or other programs that our families rely 
on.
  I have said a lot about how patently absurd it is for Republicans to 
pretend they are passing these cuts because they care about the debt, 
but I do not want to lose sight of the larger issues. It is not just 
Republicans play-acting about the debt that is absurd. The bigger 
problem here is that these cuts would be devastating for our 
communities and for American interests around the globe.
  When it comes to local news, these cuts could force local stations 
that people know and trust--know and trust--off the air. This isn't 
just about a program or two taking a haircut. Trump wants to slash 
every penny of Federal funding that supports over 1,500 local TV and 
radio stations. Those stations and those funds reach 98 percent of all 
Americans, and they are especially crucial for serving our rural areas 
and Tribal communities.
  Dozens of these stations rely on these investments for half of their 
funding and some rely on it for as much as 99 percent. If these cuts go 
through, those stations go dark, weather forecasters communities have 
turned to for years, news anchors that are their trusted voices, local 
reporters who track down answers their communities need and hold their 
officials to account will be sent packing, and those stations will go 
silent.

  Do we want our farmers to have good local coverage of weather and 
market conditions? Do we want our Tribal communities to know what is 
going on at their State capital? Do we want families to have updates 
about the local school board on community events? Because this package 
of cuts throws all of that in jeopardy, to say nothing of emergency 
alerts. These stations can be a lifeline when disasters strikes. They 
are a trusted source of information and sometimes the only source 
people have access to.
  When the devastating wildfires hit Southern California earlier this 
year, public radio broadcasts let millions of people know how to stay 
safe. When Hurricane Helene battered North Carolina, a local public 
radio station was the only source of information for many people. And, 
in fact, many stations use their towers to actually deliver emergency 
alerts to people's cell phones when cell towers go down. This funding 
supports stations that play an integral role in many of our States' 
emergency planning. Do you think our communities should have less 
warning in an emergency? Do you want to leave folks back home with less 
information when they are in harm's way? Well, I guess you vote for 
this bill if that is how you feel.
  I want you to know, I am a hard no.
  Let's not pretend a secret deal from Trump and Vought to reallocate 
$10 million is somehow a serious fix to this. It is a tiny drop in the 
bucket compared to the massive cuts being pushed through here. In fact, 
it is less than 1 percent of the overall funding that this package 
would rip away for public broadcasting and those alerts.
  Don't forget, these cuts will impact some of our kids' and parents' 
favorite educational shows--``Sesame Street,'' ``Mr. Rogers' 
Neighborhood,'' ``Daniel Tiger.'' PBS Kids has a long track record of 
creating shows that are beloved, not just because they keep kids 
entertained but because they are thoughtfully crafted to help them 
learn and grow, to stoke their curiosity, to teach them caring and 
empathy. Any parent will tell you that is a worthwhile investment, and 
any parent will also warn you, if you take away shows like this that 
gets kids engaged and gets them thinking, take that away, then there is 
an avalanche of brain-rot television waiting to fill that void, content 
that is crafted not to get kids thinking but to keep them watching at 
all costs.
  We have to save ``Sesame Street.'' We have to tell Trump and Vought 
Big Bird is not on the chopping block in this country. And we have to 
send this rescissions package to Oscar's place--a.k.a. the trash can.
  Mr. President, I want to talk, as well, about the devastating cuts 
that this package proposes to foreign assistance. I thought America's 
leadership was important to Republicans. But apparently, they want to 
pennypinch when it comes to keeping our commitments across the world. 
Apparently, they want to save money by letting families starve and kids 
die of preventable diseases because that is what this package will do.
  And this isn't some thought exercise. We have already seen how the 
first round of reckless DOGE cuts are working out. There is already a 
growing death toll and a huge leadership void that our competitors are 
racing to fill--people who needed healthcare, but Elon Musk shut down 
the only clinic for miles; kids contracting diseases like HIV and 
malaria because Trump totally upended our global health response. And 
let's not forget they are going to destroy contraceptives we have 
already purchased, rather than distribute them.
  People are starving to death while food supplies from our American 
companies are sitting rotting in ports. That is another part of why 
America's farmers are coming out in opposition to this bill, by the 
way. This week, 500 tons of high-energy biscuits expired--food that we 
already paid for, food that was meant to save lives. And because Trump 
and Elon Musk blasted USAID to smithereens and couldn't be bothered to 
fix the mess that they caused, this food is now going to be 
incinerated, even as people we promised to help watch their kids 
starve. That is outrageous, and it is infuriating.
  Is that what Republicans think of as world leadership? Is it 
leadership to Republicans when Trump fires thousands of State 
Department workers who keep our Nation safe and make our voice heard in 
the world? Is it leadership to Republicans when we pull investments out 
of international organizations and create a void that our adversaries 
like China will be all too happy to fill?
  We already know the DOGE cuts were devastating. We know that. What I 
don't know is why on Earth Republicans are getting ready today to 
double down and codify them by passing this bill.
  And, no, ``because Trump said so'' is not a good answer, especially 
when it is clear that Russ Vought is the one steering this particular 
ship. I am not even sure Trump knows what a rescission is.
  But I am sure Republicans know better than to think these cuts will 
make our Nation strong. I know that because we passed these investments 
in a bipartisan way and because I have heard them speak out about how 
much they hate these cuts.
  You can go back and watch our hearing on this. Many of our colleagues 
across the aisle during that hearing voiced deep concerns with these 
cuts that they now intend to pass today because we all know these 
investments benefit American businesses that help feed the world. They 
help stop outbreak. They stop diseases abroad before they threaten and 
spread and threaten

[[Page S4387]]

us here at home. They help promote stability and avoid chaos and 
conflict that can put our interests and our servicemembers in harm's 
way. They help us advance America's interests and keep our country safe 
and prosperous. That is the smart thing to do. It is the smart thing to 
do. And, of course, it is also the right thing to do.
  So it is worth saying, cutting these investments is just downright 
wrong. We should not be voting to let children starve or die from 
preventable diseases. We should not be voting to go back on our word to 
the world. Saving a couple of pennies is not worth losing our 
credibility or causing millions of needless deaths across the globe. It 
is not even close.
  I want to impress upon one final point, and that is: It did not have 
to be this way, and it still does not have to be this way. In fact, if 
Republicans come to their senses and vote this down, we can still go a 
different route. We can do what we have always done and consider 
bipartisan rescissions as part of our annual appropriations process. 
That offer has always been on the table, and it still is.
  I have heard Republicans say they don't like this package. In fact, 
they are trying to dial it back the tiniest bit. I have also heard they 
don't want to spend the next several months processing these requests 
out here on the floor instead of focusing on our annual funding bills 
or any number of other pressing priorities.
  So don't vote for it. Work with us to write bills that make targeted 
rescissions on a bipartisan basis. You don't work for Donald Trump. You 
don't work for Russ Vought. You actually work for your constituents. 
You can put them first, and you can vote this package down. That has 
some real benefits compared to going down the path of this 
unprecedented--unprecedented--partisan rescission.
  I am serious. I want my Republican colleagues to think about this--
and I mean really think about it.
  For one thing, if we do things the normal, bipartisan way, you get to 
assert your say as a Senator about what is getting targeted. It is not 
just, ``This is what Russ Vought says. Take it or leave it.'' You can 
actually be part of the discussion and speak out for what is important 
to you.
  For another thing, if we go the bipartisan route, you don't have to 
get jammed by this deadline. Instead of rushing through these cuts this 
week, without fully getting to consider and debate them, instead of 
being told: No, you can't change this; we don't have time, we can all 
sit down, make thoughtful decisions, and maybe even make worthwhile 
changes as we go.
  Here is an important point: If we do rescissions together through our 
appropriations bills instead of just letting Trump and Vought just jam 
them through whenever they want, my colleagues would actually know what 
in the world they are voting for because let's get one thing straight: 
Republicans don't actually know what programs are going to get cut if 
they pass this package. We don't know. It is one of the great outrages 
of this package.
  Russ Vought is just outright refusing to tell us what programs he is 
going to cut if this package passes. At our hearing with him, he 
refused to go into detail. He stonewalled us. We asked, and we asked. 
The chair--the Republican chair--even asked him about this, but OMB 
would not tell us.
  The question is, What will you cut?
  The answer has been: Pass it. We will see.
  That is why the Republicans decided to protect just a handful of 
programs without actually reducing the funding that was associated with 
them because they do not know the impact of this bill. So they preserve 
funding for Jordan, Egypt, and a few university partnerships. What 
about our allies in the Indo-Pacific? What about the implementers of 
these programs in our States? None of us should accept not having those 
answers. I am sure my colleagues were told their priorities won't be 
impacted, but Director Vought cannot keep that promise given the scale 
of these cuts. The math does not add up.
  Even if you believe we should make cuts, you should be joining us to 
demand we actually know what is being cut. If we do this the right way, 
the bipartisan way, we would know because we would be writing the bill. 
We would. Now, doesn't that sound a lot better than just passing this 
Pandora's box and finding out later what got cut?
  Finally--I have said this before several times, but I want to warn my 
colleagues, once again--if you keep going down this path, you are going 
to further undermine our bipartisan process. We have never--never 
before--seen bipartisan investments slashed through a partisan 
rescissions package. Do not start now, not when we are working at this 
very moment in a bipartisan way to pass our spending bills. As I said 
earlier, bipartisanship doesn't end with any one line being crossed. It 
erodes. It breaks down bit by bit until, one day, there is nothing 
else. Sure, a few Members may be willing to stick it out and work as 
hard as they can to get a result, but this Senate doesn't work off a 
few Members; it works off of consensus-building, and the more bridges 
you burn, the fewer paths you leave to get things done.
  So why go down this partisan path? Why vote to spend the next many 
weeks considering more and more of these packages? Why do it for a set 
of cuts that is so damaging, a set of cuts many of you have concerns 
with?
  We are at the table right now--the Appropriations Committee right 
now. We are writing bipartisan spending bills, and we absolutely can 
and will discuss bipartisan rescissions. Why don't you all join us and 
make the work easier instead of making that work harder by passing this 
bill and setting a very painful new precedent.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this partisan rescissions 
bill because it represents a complete surrender of Congress's power of 
the purse--one of the singular responsibilities under the U.S. 
Constitution. It will hurt America's standing in the world also. 
Finally and tragically, it will cost lives.
  We are considering this package at a time when the Trump 
administration has frozen congressionally enacted funds, illegally 
impounded funds, and threatened to cancel unspent funds at the end of 
the fiscal year. Now the administration is back, asking Congress to 
ratify even more cuts of programs that we agreed to on a bipartisan 
basis and, in many cases, that were signed into law by President Trump. 
I know that many of my Republican colleagues recognize the danger this 
proposal represents beyond its devastating cuts; yet few are willing to 
oppose it.
  The Trump administration claims it has found over $9 billion in 
wasteful spending at the State Department and at the Corporation of 
Public Broadcasting, and it points to some seemingly egregious examples 
of frivolous spending. I won't defend the outrageous waste of 
taxpayers' dollars. No one should or could. And if we were just voting 
on the examples some of my Republican colleagues like to highlight, I 
would suspect that kind of bill would get bipartisan support. But the 
longer the administration's examples of waste are scrutinized, the more 
it seems they may be exaggerated or even fabricated.

  Indeed, according to a New York Times report yesterday, Office of 
Management and Budget Director Russell Vought's testimony that $9.3 
million was spent ``to advise Russian doctors on how to perform 
abortions and gender analysis'' was patently false in almost every 
respect.
  Even if we accepted all of the administration's examples of waste as 
gospel, they don't total up to anything close to $9 billion. But these 
cuts, if we approve them, will come from somewhere.
  As Senator Murkowski pointed out last night, we have been given big, 
broad categories where funding might be cut, but the administration 
won't tell us which specific spending they plan to terminate. That was 
evident in last month's Appropriations Committee hearing with Director 
Vought, who simply evaded my colleague Senator Schatz' reasonable 
questions about what specific programs he would cut. The attitude he 
displayed was: Don't worry; you pass this bill, and we will find the 
waste and get back to you later.
  That is not the way to run a government or a company or anything 
else.
  And make no mistake, the likely decisions by OMB and the Trump 
administration are likely to be as bad as they

[[Page S4388]]

are ill-informed. We have seen this repeated and repeated with DOGE, 
with Elon Musk making statements of the billions he saved, et cetera, 
and discovering that those billions evaporated quickly under analysis; 
discharging people--``unnecessary'' people--then, within days, calling 
them back. That was the case at the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. Again, there are not thoughtful analyses and practical 
programs--just slash and burn.
  This bill will eliminate close to $1.1 billion in funding for the 
Corporation of Public Broadcasting. This would not simply affect 
funding for National Public Radio and national PBS; it would result in 
funding cuts for local stations like Rhode Island PBS and The Public's 
Radio, which would lose about 10 percent of its funding if this bill 
passes. The same story will play out in every State, with independent 
local news and civic discourse taking the hit just because of the 
President's command of the majority party. That is the flavor, really, 
of public radio because it is so decentralized. Stations in Kansas are 
covering local news, local personalities, local issues, and it is the 
same way in Rhode Island. That will be lost.
  This bill is also likely to eliminate funding for educational tools, 
and in the wake of the deadly flooding in Texas and elsewhere, do my 
colleagues really want to support a package that cuts funding for 
emergency alerts?
  The bill would also cut $7.9 billion from the kind of global 
assistance programs that are crucial to our national security and our 
efforts to compete with China economically and diplomatically. These 
programs are also the embodiment of American idealism and morality.
  As Catholic Relief Services wrote:

       If passed, these rescissions will directly impact the 
     United States' ability to protect human life and promote 
     human dignity; to advance U.S. and global peace and security; 
     and to foster economic development that benefits U.S. 
     taxpayers and people living in poverty around the world.

  That is from the Catholic Relief Services.
  The cuts on the table also include $500 million from global health 
programs, which could affect efforts that have successfully slowed the 
spread of infectious diseases, along with cuts to lifesaving 
humanitarian assistance. One proven program that could see drastic cuts 
under this rescissions package is the disbursement of Ready-to-Use 
Therapeutic Food, or RUTF. RUTF is a specialty product to treat severe 
malnutrition in children and could be impacted by the proposed cuts to 
UNICEF that are included in this package.
  Unfortunately, we have already seen this administration's disregard 
for the lifesaving treatment provided by RUTF. Edesia Nutrition--a key 
manufacturer of RUTF--is based in Rhode Island, and it has been forced 
to curtail production and delay shipments of lifesaving therapeutic 
food, which has sat in warehouses, unable to get to children who need 
it, because of the Trump administration's needless slow-walking. If OMB 
really cared about waste, it wouldn't have this food aid and millions 
of tons of wheat and other crops sitting and rotting rather than 
distributing it to children who need it to survive.
  These are products made by American workers using domestically 
produced food to prevent millions of children from starving to death. 
And funds for RUTF have been included in appropriations bills on a 
bipartisan basis under both Republican and Democratic majorities and 
administrations for years.
  Also included in this bill is $1 billion in cuts to U.N. 
contributions and $4.9 billion in cuts to international economic and 
development assistance, and it threatens funding for global democracy. 
These international assistance programs are not just helping people in 
developing nations; they also provide an outsized value to the United 
States, building the soft power and credibility that make us a leader 
on the international stage and helps us confront our major adversaries.
  If we eliminate these programs, we will be ceding that authority to 
China and Russia, who would like nothing more than to displace the 
United States' global leadership position. Indeed, if my colleagues 
truly want to improve the U.N., they need to recognize that every time 
the United States steps back from an international organization, the 
Chinese swoop right in, gaining good will and advantage and leverage on 
critical problems.
  We are not part of the Law of the Sea because we have not ratified 
that treaty; China is, though. And when we talk about precious rare 
minerals that are in the ocean, guess who is going to be deciding how 
they will be allocated and what are the rules of extraction, et cetera. 
Not us, because we are not part of that international organization, but 
the Chinese certainly will have influence.
  These cuts are shortsighted. There is no other way to put it. To 
paraphrase the former Secretary of Defense, an outstanding marine--
Secretary of Defense Mattis--if we don't fund these soft-power and 
diplomatic programs, then we need to buy more ammunition. In fact, we 
need to buy more ammunition anyway, but if we don't fund these 
programs, we won't be able to afford to buy all the ammunition we need.
  I oppose this package on the basis of both its contents and what it 
would mean for the future of bipartisanship in this Chamber and 
congressional power of the purse.
  Let me be clear. With this vote, we are surrendering our 
constitutional responsibilities and authorities to the Executive. We 
are indeed close to violating our oath to preserve, protect, and defend 
the Constitution--too close for comfort.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
the President's request that Congress take away money for public 
broadcasting and for our own security, in foreign assistance, that has 
already been passed and signed into law on a bipartisan basis with a 
Republican-led House and a Democratic-led Senate, at the time, which 
worked out all the details--yes, compromise is not a dirty word--and 
now look at what is happening.
  This clawback doesn't just eliminate funding for, say, NPR and PBS. 
The primary impact of that part of the funding cut is going to be at 
local radio and TV--1,500 local public media stations across the 
country that receive 70 percent of this funding, jeopardizing these 
stations that provide local community services.
  Stripping this funding is an attack on these local stations, yes, but 
it is the communities. I know because I know some of my communities 
that rely on these stations. Grand Marais, MN, the very tip of our 
State--the tip of Minnesota--do you think all of these other stations 
are covering the Canadian wildfires hourly?
  They do because of the smoke. People need to know the air quality 
when they are making decisions about what they are going to do that day 
or the next day.
  Do you think people know when, on Highway 61, there is a tree over 
the road or there has been a deer that has been hit by a car? No. They 
hear it on WTIP.
  Or in Bemidji, MN, which has had some really, really difficult storms 
lately that took down so many structures and houses, they are able to 
get the kind of news that they need on that station. Their newspaper is 
now, for the most part, online. So they need these TV and radio 
stations that give them the information that they need.
  I have had several Republicans from my State write me, former State 
legislators who are on the boards of these TV stations. They also view 
it as a way to get information.
  At the local TV station in Austin, MN, the former Republican leader 
in the State senate is on the board. I visited with him recently, when 
I was down there. This is the place in Austin, in the Albert Lea area, 
near the Iowa border, where they are able to get their unique news that 
gathers people together, that brings them together.
  Then there are the emergency alerts. Earlier this month, we were 
tragically reminded of the importance of this--Texas, New Mexico, the 
fires in Arizona. We rely on this information in local communities to 
know what to do and what is safe.
  This isn't a partisan issue: 77 percent of Republicans and 78 percent 
of Democrats report relying on public radio for

[[Page S4389]]

emergency alerts and news. That is part of the reason why, for half a 
century, we have agreed on a bipartisan basis in the U.S. Senate to 
invest in public broadcasting. Yet now congressional Republicans are 
using a partisan process to rubberstamp the President's unchecked power 
and rip away these resources, despite the fact that the American people 
support this on a 2-to-1 margin.
  I think about these stations in Duluth, in Granite Falls, in Austin. 
Every week, 20 million people across the country actually listen to 
radio programs that were started out of our local Minnesota Public 
Radio--maybe ``A Prairie Home Companion.'' They are listening to some 
of those former broadcasts. They make them smile, and they make seniors 
feel happy when they are alone in the assisted living.
  Or maybe ``Marketplace''--that also started in my State. They are 
able to get the facts. They are able to get news about what is 
happening with the economy and interesting stories.
  I think a constituent of mine said it best:

       Public media serves us in many ways. We live in the middle 
     of the country. We only watch PBS and listen to public radio, 
     which provides local news coverage, arts programs, and 
     thoughtful discussions on a wide variety of topics--

  In their words--

       without loud argument or obnoxious advertising. . . . It 
     provides information on local disasters, such as we recently 
     experienced in Bemidji.

  That is where Paul Bunyan is from--or that is where the statue is.

       Because of the reporting done on that devastating event, we 
     were able to learn what was happening to the people and how 
     we could help.

  We must support these vital resources that give voice to important 
local issues.
  In addition are the reckless cuts to foreign aid. Foreign aid and 
development assistance play a critical role in promoting U.S. economic 
and national security by stabilizing volatile regions and decreasing 
the likelihood of U.S. troops being sent into battle. Helping our 
friends and allies, yes, it is the right thing to do, but it is also 
smart for us to do at home.
  I have, with Republican Members of our congressional delegation in 
Minnesota, stood up together at press conferences to make sure we keep 
sending foreign aid--this is in the last 5 years--to Somalia, because 
we know what the threat is if we just close our eyes to terrorist 
forces trying to go up in leadership and take over regions of these 
countries. We know what happens. But if we just turn our backs, you are 
going to find out what does happen. It is not pretty, and it is not 
good for the United States of America.

  It is certainly not good in our back and forth that we have with 
China and China's continuing investment in other parts of the world, 
whether it is infrastructure in Africa or sending food to countries in 
need.
  This rescission would also weaken our global health programs. These 
programs not only show humanitarian leadership; they also keep us safe. 
You can't just put your head in the sand and hope that Ebola doesn't 
come your way, which we were able to at least limit its horrific spread 
by the work that we did overseas; or bird flu, where we have seen what 
happens there; or what is happening right now in the southern border 
with screwworm.
  We are having this debate, and we are seeing the grave results of 
dismantling USAID.
  In the midst of an intensifying war in Ukraine, the rescission would 
also drastically cut funding from the account that provides economic 
assistance to our partners.
  You think about the President's work in the Middle East and the 
potential for extending the Abraham accords and the potential for a 
peace deal there. Well, that is not going to be helped if we cut off 
the foreign aid to some of our only allies that are in the region, 
countries like Jordan.
  Foreign aid is about demonstrating leadership and compassion, but it 
is also about security.
  To conclude, as a daughter of a newspaperman, I know how important 
public media and the free press are to strengthening our democracy. 
Hacking away at public broadcasting and international aid is not just 
shortsighted; it is dangerous. These investments are relatively small 
in cost yet immense in impact. They strengthen our country and 
strengthen our leadership.
  We ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look at what 
this means for our role in the world.
  We have three independent branches of government. We have a process 
that--just as Senator Murray, who is here, and Senator Collins showed 
just last week--can be bipartisan, where we agree on budget amounts 
going forward. We have the power of the purse. We are article I in the 
Constitution, and we better show our power instead of just being rolled 
and being Members over there who are rubberstamping this President.
  Stand up and do your job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, it all started with the stroke of a pen. 
Within hours of taking office, in January, the President signed what 
can only be called a death sentence to millions of people all over the 
world.
  Executive Order No. 14169 simply read:

       It is the policy of United States that no further United 
     States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that 
     is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President 
     of the United States.

  The order directed a 90-day pause in payments, while foreign 
assistance was reviewed. But it became clear that this was not a 
process for reviewing or reforming programs. It was the beginning of 
the end--a wholesale destruction of the enterprise, from top to bottom, 
in defiance of the law and of logic.
  Presidents can save lives. They can also cost lives. And while almost 
every President has chosen to do the former, Donald Trump, aided by a 
band of loyalists and ideologues, has chosen, instead, to inflict death 
and disease and starvation on the world's most vulnerable.
  We used to be the indispensable Nation that people around the world 
counted on for help. People would see the American flag, whether on the 
side of a truck, a sticker, or a food parcel, and think: The good guys 
are here. Help is coming.
  But not anymore. We are causing death now. We are spreading disease 
now. We are deepening starvation now.
  It is not because it is saving us huge sums of money or because 
saving lives somehow stopped being in our national interests. All of 
this suffering and misery is because a few people were hell-bent on 
ransacking the government and tearing down whatever it is that they 
didn't like or they didn't understand--to hell with the consequences. 
To them, the lives lost are just the cost of doing business.
  ``Move fast and break things'' is the ethos of Silicon Valley 
entrepreneurs. But when you move fast and you break things in the U.S. 
Agency for International Development, tens of thousands of people 
perish.
  Let's start with how we got here.
  Following Trump's Executive order, Secretary Rubio and Peter Marocco, 
the new Director of the State Department's Office of Foreign 
Assistance, issued a stop work order on all 6,200 grants and contracts 
worldwide. They also ordered an immediate pause on new foreign 
assistance spending. That meant that partners who had already completed 
work were not getting paid. Contracts that had already been signed 
couldn't be executed.
  Days later, Marocco, along with a bunch of DOGE staffers, including a 
19-year-old and a 23-year-old, physically barged into USAID and forced 
dozens of senior career officials to be put on leave over so-called 
insubordination. These people were just doing their jobs.

  His issue seemingly was with payments that had been approved before 
the Executive order and were then making their way through the USAID 
payment system. Nevertheless, the career civil servants were escorted 
out of the building and locked out of their emails. Anyone who dared to 
push back or speak up was sidelined, including the Acting 
Administrator, who was pushed out to make way for Marocco to become 
Deputy Administrator.
  As he and his team looked for not just savings or efficiencies but 
what they called ``viral abuse'' that would be easy to mock out of 
context, FOX News stepped into the breach to help. For days on end, 
their chyrons blared:

       ``Viper's nest": USAID accused of corruption . . . long 
     before Trump admin took aim.

[[Page S4390]]

       More ridiculous USAID spending repealed.
       Elon purged DC's slush fund.
       As the smear campaign kicked into overdrive, DOGE locked 
     out all of the Agency's employees, including those working in 
     conflict zones, from their phones and emails.

  In early February, Musk tweeted:

       USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.

  Days later, after carrying out the destruction, he wrote:

       We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.

  And just like that, one of the United States' primary instruments of 
soft power over the last 60 years--which has done everything from 
curing diseases to thwarting terrorism--was decapitated overnight.
  USAID's success in moral, political, economic, and security terms was 
made possible by scores of public servants who felt a responsibility to 
alleviate suffering even if that meant putting themselves in harm's 
way, but in the end, it was torn down by a bunch of crazed ideologues 
who saw foreign assistance as an easy target to test-drive their 
project of crippling the government.
  Perhaps abolishing the Health Department or the VA in the first few 
weeks was a bridge too far. But here was money going to help people in, 
as Madeleine Albright used to say, faraway places with hard-to-
pronounce names. And no matter how much good it was doing for the 
people whose lives were saved and communities that were built but also 
for our national security, none of that mattered when all you had to do 
was make up some lies to justify the vandalism.
  It has been only a few months, and already the loss of USAID and its 
critical work around the world has been catastrophic. More than 360,000 
people have died as a result of the cuts--360,000 deaths. And so I will 
be damned if I let a pundit or a Democratic strategist or a Republican 
strategist tell me that the American people signed up for allowing 
360,000 people to die--on purpose. For what? Deficit reduction? And to 
Patty Murray's point, 2 weeks ago, they just blew up the deficit by 
trillions--trillions of dollars.
  The amount of money that it takes to save a starving child or to 
prevent the transmission of HIV-AIDS from mother to child is minuscule. 
And we do this because we are the good guys. And we do this because it 
is cheap. And we do this because when we need something from a friend 
in a foreign land, they would think of us well because we are always on 
the scene to be helpful.
  These are not hypothetical or distant outcomes. We are no longer 
arguing about what might happen in the future; we are talking about 
what is happening across the planet right now. People are dying right 
now not in spite of us but because of us. We are causing death. We have 
gone from being the good guys--flaws, mistakes, and all--to being a 
conduit for death and sickness and hunger.
  A 10-year-old boy named Peter in South Sudan had contracted HIV from 
his mother at birth. His parents died while he was young, but 
medication through PEPFAR kept him alive. That was until February, 
when, without access to medication, Peter fell severely sick and later 
died. The health outreach worker who had cared for him said simply:

       If USAID would be here, Peter would not have died.

  A pregnant woman in a Liberian village hemorrhaged and began to bleed 
heavily while in labor, but without gas because of funding cuts, USAID 
ambulances stood idle, unable to help. And despite her neighbors' best 
efforts to carry her 10 miles on foot through the jungle to the nearest 
hospital, she died midjourney, along with her unborn son.
  Dorcas, a 10-year-old in Zambia, had gotten so used to her routine of 
taking HIV medication every night with her mom that she was confused 
when it ran out a few months ago. Her mom recounted:

       In the past week, she'll open the tin [where the medicine 
     is kept] and find that it's empty. She'll run down to the 
     clinic to go and check if she can collect her medication. And 
     then she'll come back home and say, ``Oh, you are right. The 
     clinic is closed. They're not there anymore.''

  In Sudan, which has been ravaged by war and gripped by famine, a 
mother watched two of her children under the age of 3 wither from 
malnutrition and die after a soup kitchen that had been supported by 
USAID closed overnight. Days before he died, the older of the two 
children had asked for porridge. ``I told him we don't have any wheat 
to make that,'' his mother recalled, adding that the soup kitchen's 
daily meal, which the family had shared, was a godsend.
  A mother in Nigeria worried about how she would keep her infant 
alive, having just lost the other twin to malnutrition in the wake of 
funding cuts. A peanut paste supplemental that had been paid for by 
American foreign assistance had been used to treat her newborns for 
malnutrition. She wondered about how she would feed her child, and she 
said:

       I don't want to bury another child.

  There are thousands and thousands of gut-wrenching stories just like 
these from every corner of the planet, with newborns and children and 
families and communities. And this is only what has happened in the 
last few months. Just imagine what is going to happen if we codify 
these cuts.
  We are not going to prevent every death. We know that. We are not 
going to be able to feed every child. We understand that. We cannot 
feasibly help every community that needs help. We accept that. But this 
is something different altogether. This is knowingly and willingly and 
needlessly inflicting horrific suffering on millions and millions of 
the most vulnerable people alive anywhere on the planet. And for what? 
To save money? The idea that any of this is about finding savings while 
at the same time Republicans are exploding the national debt by $4 
trillion to cut taxes for billionaires just doesn't pass the smell 
test.
  To top it all off, the administration is about to incinerate, is 
about to light on fire--is about to incinerate--500 metric tons of food 
aid because they let it expire while sitting in a warehouse for months. 
They are lighting food on fire. They lit food on fire--food grown in 
the United States, manufactured in the United States, to be sent out to 
the most vulnerable people on the planet, with a sticker with the U.S. 
emblem on it. And ``Make America Great Again'' apparently is doing all 
of that and then letting it rot in a warehouse and then incinerating 
it.

  What the hell are we doing here?
  You want to have a conversation about debt and deficits? You want to 
have a conversation about aligning our foreign policy better? You want 
to have a conversation about whether or not the State Department--not 
the USAID Agency--should have been funding operas and cultural 
enterprises in foreign countries? Fine, we can have that conversation. 
But I dare you to justify lighting food on fire.
  It wasn't so long ago that a Republican Senator stood on this very 
floor talking about those in his party who claimed that cutting foreign 
aid was an easy way to save money.

       A lot of times people say, ``Well, cut foreign aid.'' 
     Foreign aid is less than 1% of our budget. But foreign aid 
     can make a difference when properly used. And if you ever 
     have a chance, travel to the African continent and you will 
     meet people who are alive today because the American taxpayer 
     funded antiviral HIV medications . . . kept them alive. It 
     will not be easy to radicalize people who are alive because 
     [of] the American taxpayer.

  That was Secretary Rubio, as Senator Rubio.
  Why is this happening at all?
  I worry that there is a very specific and rather dark view about what 
the United States is capable of. It is a view of our military, it is a 
view of our economic power, it is a view of our cultural power, and it 
is a view of our moral authority, which is, the best path forward, as 
we decline, is to lock it down; is to not engage with the world; is to 
not project power militarily, culturally, economically, morally.
  We are going from the indispensable Nation--and, by the way, this is 
a real thing. If you ever do foreign policy trips, people hang on the 
words of U.S. Senators who sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. 
First among equals. People want to know: What is the United States 
doing? What is the United States doing? It doesn't matter what the 
issue is. It could be fighting malnutrition. It could be economics and 
trade. It could be military strategy. Everyone wants to know: What is 
the United States doing?
  Do you know what has changed in the last 6 months? They are moving on

[[Page S4391]]

from us. They are not waiting to hear what the United States is doing; 
they have seen what the United States is doing.
  In Trump 1.0, we could basically be reassuring and say: We will be 
back. Don't worry. We are going through a rocky time.
  Now China is in the breach. China has stepped up. It is not just that 
America's retreat is bad for us. It is really good for China. It is 
great for Russia. It is great if you are Hungary. The Kremlin was 
nearly instantaneous with its praise, calling the dismantling of the 
foreign aid enterprise a ``smart move.'' Autocrats in Hungary and El 
Salvador also celebrated USAID's demise.
  Now, there is a basic principle in political campaigns, which is that 
if you are doing something that your opponent loves, you may want to 
reconsider whether it is a good strategy. The moment we did this, all 
the bad guys were like: Very smart. Good job. We are very happy for 
you. Excellent.
  China has seized this opportunity with a little more specificity 
because they have the opportunity to step into this role. They are 
working on child nutrition and landmine clearing in Cambodia, health 
and education in Nepal, disaster response in Myanmar, and climate 
resilience in Mongolia.
  It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to understand what this 
will look like in a few years' time. China will become the partner of 
choice for countries big and small all around the world. It will have 
increased its funding to global bodies like the World Health 
Organization, enabling it to win leadership posts and rewriting the 
rules in its favor. And we will have facilitated that process.
  (Mr. RICKETTS assumed the Chair.)
  So that is the background. Now let's talk about the specifics of what 
is in this package. And this point I want to make really clear, and I 
made this point in the Appropriations Committee.
  There were a bunch of controversial programs that precipitated this 
effort to cut USAID. Two points to be made: One, the total dollar 
amount of all of the controversial programs was like in the $100 
million to $200 million range. That is No. 1. No. 2 is, all of those 
programs were discontinued.
  This is a budget that was enacted in March. This is Trump's budget. 
This is Trump's State Department. This is Trump's U.S. Agency for 
International Development. So there was not a single thing that was on 
that FOX chyron that Marco Rubio is continuing to do. So this 
rescissions package doesn't have any of that stuff.
  By the way, some of my Republican colleagues who understandably 
weren't super engrossed in the details--I had to send them a line-by-
line of what these rescissions do, and they are sitting there going: 
Where is the opera in Ecuador? Where is the cultural exchange program 
or the parade in South Africa? Where is all the goofy-sounding stuff?
  And the answer is, a lot of that stuff was made up in the first 
place. But even if you stipulate to the idea that there was 
inappropriate spending, it is literally not in this package.
  (Mr. RICKETTS assumed the Chair.)
  What is in this package is stuff that every--I wouldn't say every--90 
out of 100 of us have asked for--have asked for. What do I mean by 
that? I mean as the ranking member of the State, Foreign Operations, 
and Related Programs Subcommittee--basically, as the chair or ranking 
member of any of the subcommittees--you get a bunch of letters from 
your colleagues saying: This program is important to me. Could you 
please take care of it in the coming appropriations cycle?
  Now, these letters are private, and I will protect the 
confidentiality of these interactions. But suffice it to say, a lot of 
the people voting for the rescissions are also privately asking for me 
to fund the thing that they are defunding.
  So this is all about the momentum that came from DOGE and Trump and 
some tweets and some animus--real animus--to the foreign aid 
enterprise.
  Let's go through what is in it.
  $4.15 billion for economic support and development assistance. Our 
economic and development assistance is not charity. It is for 
countering the influence of the People's Republic of China or promoting 
regional stability. This work is in our economic and security 
interests.
  If this administration disagrees with some of the projects pursued by 
the previous administration, the good news is they have pretty broad 
authority to reprogram the money. Like, if we are doing program--I 
don't want to name what country because it will have foreign policy 
implications. If we are doing a program in a country, and this 
administration says: You know, that is not as important.
  They don't have to rescind the money. They can reprogram it to China 
or Russia or Ukraine, or whatever it is. They have that flexibility. 
What they are saying is they want less money to counter foreign 
influence.
  Mr. President, $563 million for treaty dues. Now, we are members of 
organizations with whom we disagree. That is kind of the deal, right? 
Because if we want to be in an international forum--even arguing for 
our interests, even arguing against other countries or being frustrated 
with the body with which we are interacting--we have two choices: We 
can either participate; or if we don't pay our dues, we relegate 
ourselves to something called observer status, which basically means we 
are on the outside looking in.
  In order to get in the room, you have got to pay your dues to the 
relevant organization.
  That is what we are doing here. We are rescinding all of the funds to 
all of the payments to all these international organizations. Why? Not 
because it is in our foreign policy interests--it is actually not--but 
because a bunch of ideologues don't actually understand how foreign 
policy works.
  That is the thing here. You can have a different view under whatever 
it is to have an ``America first'' foreign policy. But this isn't that. 
This is just vandalism, right? I am not having a disagreement with Jim 
Risch about how hawkish to be or how much to prioritize global health 
versus something else. We are just literally cutting off our nose to 
spite our face because what they want is vandalism to the enterprise.
  The tools of foreign policy are being shredded. So this isn't about 
policy unless you think the policy is: I wish my State Department were 
weaker; I wish the tools in our tool kit were more limited; I wish our 
ability to prevent war and keep nations stable was less well-funded; I 
wish that the only tool in our toolkit was military might.
  And it is not a small thing that many former Secretaries of Defense 
have said something along the lines of: If you defund foreign aid, I am 
going to need more ammunition, because this is the cheapest way to 
prevent war.
  Mr. President, $500 million for global health programs. Now, the new 
Republican proposal protects some of those programs funded by this 
account, but it leaves out pandemic prevention, family planning, and 
work on a wide range of issues; $1.3 billion for migration and refugee 
assistance and international disaster assistance. This funding supports 
our efforts to help refugees and other displaced people in conflict 
zones around the world.
  You know, most of us, at some point, out of the 100 of us do some 
sort of codel--some sort of foreign travel--and this is the kind of 
stuff we visit. And this is the stuff on a bipartisan basis that we all 
nod approvingly about ``it is great that we are doing this; it is great 
that we are providing this kind of assistance.''
  And $1.3 billion for refugee assistance is being cut. I will tell you 
why. It is because it has the word ``refugee'' in it. I mean, that is 
how they figured out what they wanted to cut, right? They ran word 
searches. They are pretending it is sophisticated AI. Maybe it was, 
maybe it wasn't. But all they were doing was looking for words like 
``gender''; or looking for words like ``climate''; looking for words 
like ``equity''; looking for words like ``refugee.'' And if the program 
was named in such a way that it mentioned, it just used those words, it 
was out. Just totally preposterous.
  Our contributions to and participation in organizations like UNICEF 
is being cut. I mean, good luck explaining why you cut UNICEF because I 
can't--like, I am pretty good at imagining what my political 
competitors on the other side of the aisle would say. But why did you 
cut UNICEF?
  Are you trying to pretend that some number of hundreds of millions of 
dollars to prevent starvation among children is like going to do the 
trick in

[[Page S4392]]

terms of getting debt and deficits under control? Nobody actually 
believes that.
  Why are you cutting UNICEF? If this is about tightening our belts, 
why cut UNICEF?
  Mr. President, $460 million for the assistance for Europe, Eurasia, 
and Central Asia. This account funds a whole bunch of bipartisan 
foreign policy priorities, including energy security in Ukraine that 
will be cut completely if this rescission is enacted.
  If there were programs under the previous administration that the 
current administration agrees with, good news, they literally have the 
authority to reprogram those dollars. This is 2-year money. It doesn't 
actually have to be spent by the end of the Federal fiscal year. They 
have pretty good authority to reprogram it.
  But they don't want to reprogram to something that they consider 
important. They want to shred the enterprise.
  Mr. President, $125 million for the U.S. Agency for International 
Development operating expenses. Now, this administration is illegally 
dismantling USAID and functionally merging it under the State 
Department.
  Here is the problem with this $125 million. Yes, it is admin 
expenses. I have been in the nonprofit sector, and I have been in the 
grant-giving side. Nobody loves the idea of paying for administrative 
expenses, but I know for a fact the State Department didn't want this 
in the rescissions package because now that they have merged USAID 
under the State Department, they literally don't have the money and 
they have got to absorb a $125 million hit.
  Mr. President, $100 million for the transition initiatives and the 
Complex Crisis Fund. This is flexible funding in contingency accounts 
that didn't expire, and the administration can program it any way they 
want.
  Mr. President, $83 million for the Democracy Fund--$83 million. 
Promoting democratic values is directly in our interest and supporting 
resistance to dictators--resistance to dictators. We are cutting 
resistance to dictators. Good for us. ``Make America Great Again.''
  Ronald Reagan would be proud. The party of Cold Warriors, the party 
that vanquished the Soviet Union, the party that claims a hawkish 
mantle is now saying: You know what, this thing, which is probably .00-
whatever of the entire Federal spend and an even tinier amount of the 
debt and deficit of the United States, let's defund that because it is 
none of our business if dictators maintain power.
  It is a real change in policy here.
  Mr. President, $27 million for the Inter-American Foundation. This 
provides small, cost-effective grants, and technical support for 
locally led development projects. Strengthening stability and self-
reliance in partner countries is in our interests. This is another one 
that I get a lot of letters from these guys saying: Please fund it.
  ``Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Schatz, this program is 
super important, and would you please fund it in the next 
appropriations cycle?''
  That is the private letter that we get. The public action is to 
rescind the money.
  Mr. President, $22 million for the African Development Foundation. 
The administration says the African Development Foundation's work is 
duplicative of the State Department's work, but the kind of grants and 
technical support that the African Development Foundation provides is 
not available through the State Department.
  Mr. President, $15 million for the U.S. Institute of Peace--a 
creature of stature, a creature of one of the first Senators from the 
great State of Hawaii, Mr. Sparky Matsunaga.
  The through line between all of this is that there is no correlation 
between the rationale provided by the administration for these cuts and 
what is actually in the package.
  I have talked to Eric Schmitt, with whom I have a reasonable, 
functional relationship. But we are talking past each other because 
every time I talk about what is actually in this package, he pivots 
back to what is actually not in this package and starts naming line 
items of things that are not in the 8-page rescissions bill.
  This is not the BBB, which took--I forget how--11\1/2\ hours to read. 
This thing is 8 pages. You can go and see there is no line item for 
$1.8 billion for operas and festivals and underwater basket weaving and 
whatever else nonsense people wanted to characterize as the U.S. 
foreign aid enterprise.
  This is economic support funds; this is global public health; this is 
humanitarian assistance; this is helping our friends in Jordan and 
elsewhere to maintain the basic stability so that there is not a 
conflagration in a region.
  That is what is in this package. That is what is being rescinded from 
this package.
  I understand that there is some obligation as a party member to 
oblige the requests of this party's President. I get it. But we are 
still a system with separate and coequal independent branches of 
government. The problem is: If you don't assert your authority, you 
don't functionally have it.
  So it is true that we hold the purse strings. It is true that we are 
the article I branch. It is true that we are in charge of whether a 
bill passes or not. But I will tell you the thing that is most alarming 
to me is not the bad policy outcomes--and there are terrible policy 
outcomes. The thing that is most alarming to me is that I have not yet 
seen in the last 6 months in this final term of Donald Trump what I saw 
in the first term of Donald Trump, which is quietly--not rudely, not 
provocatively--but occasionally, this branch of government on a 
bipartisan basis stood up for itself.
  Those guys would say: Look, we love you Mr. Trump, we love you Mr. 
President, but on this one, I can't be with you.
  On BBB, I understand. It is very hard to reject the President's 
signature policy accomplishment. But this seemed like one where we 
could have gotten four ``no'' votes. This really did seem to me like 
one where it would be a good opportunity to stand up to the President 
and just say: We are going to do the appropriating over here. Let me 
show you what article I says and what article II says, and we are going 
to defer to you on lots of matters but not 100 percent of matters.
  So my question is: If they are going to have the votes to enact this 
rescission package, when is it that Republicans are going to stand up 
for their own prerogatives?
  Why would you run for office; would you put your family through all 
of that; would you go through the difficulty of a campaign; would you 
go through the difficulty of being a public figure and subject to 
scrutiny and criticism and all the late nights and the kind of 
uncomfortable interactions and all of that? It really is a sacrifice. 
It is certainly an honor, but it is also a sacrifice.
  Why would you do that if you don't get to make up your own mind?
  I don't pretend to be able to get into the mind or the position of a 
Republican colleague of mine. I am from Hawaii. It is different. But I 
do think that there is a point at which it is just not worth it to give 
this guy every single thing that he wants. And it would be important 
and it will age well and your family will be happy and your staff will 
be secretly happy--at least some of them--if, at some point, you 
establish that there are some limits to the executive branch's power.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about two subjects, 
the first of which is the vote that will begin here in about an hour 
and a half, and that is on this rescissions bill. I have indicated, I 
voted for the discharge petition and the motion to proceed last night. 
For those that may not know that process, voting for the discharge 
petition simply means that we took it out of committee. Voting for the 
motion to proceed simply means that we are now on the bill and will be 
considering amendments over the course of the next several hours to 
determine if we have Member support to change the bill, to improve it 
from different people's perspectives, and I intend to vote for final 
passage at this time.
  I am also looking at other amendments that maybe will make the bill 
better, but I also have to speak to the unique nature of this 
rescissions package so that we make sure that we get this right, and we 
lay groundwork for future rescissions.

[[Page S4393]]

  The only time that we have had a successful rescissions package in 
modern history was 1992. And that rescission--by the way, for those who 
don't know what rescission is, it just simply means this funding will 
be cut. You will not be allowed to spend money in the administration.
  Well, in 1992, the successful rescissions package actually had 
significant cuts, but in every case, it had very detailed lists of 
specific programs that were going to be cut. So then as Members, when 
they proceeded in 1992--candidly, I wasn't even paying attention to 
politics back in 1992 at this level--but when they were proceeding with 
the rescissions package, they can look at a specific line item and come 
to the floor, like we are going to do this afternoon, and say: I don't 
like that line item. I am going to see if I have enough support among 
my colleagues to take that one out. I will end up voting for the 
rescission, but I want that out because I disagree that we should be 
cutting the funding.
  In an ideal world, that success in 1992 would have instructed the 
rescissions package we have before us today, but the reality is, we 
don't have those details. I am prepared to vote for this rescission 
package with the hope that I can trust those who are going to make the 
detailed decisions for about $7 billion of the total $9 billion 
rescission.
  About $2 billion of it is associated with National Public Radio, the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. People have asked me why wouldn't 
I try to vote on an amendment to cut that out. Because I believe that 
those organizations have drifted over time, that we probably, at some 
point, should provide funding to them, but I am not going to fight that 
part of the rescission because at least we know exactly what it is. So 
Members have to decide whether or not they are OK with it.
  I suspect we are going to find out there are some things that we are 
going to regret, some second- and third-order effects, and I suspect 
that when we do, we will have to come back and fix it, similar to what 
I am trying to do with a bill I voted against a couple of weeks ago, 
the so-called Big Beautiful Bill that I think we are going to have to 
go back and work on.
  But the remainder of the rescissions package really is at the top 
level. We have no earthly idea what specific cuts will occur, but I am 
willing to give OMB and the President the benefit of the doubt that 
they are going to be responsible cuts. There are two kinds of areas 
that I am going to be focused on, in particular. There is an area that 
could lay the groundwork for the administration to cut roughly $200 
million from a Ukraine support program. It is not the military support 
program. I appreciate what the President is doing in terms of finally 
getting to a point where we are going to sustain support for Ukraine. 
This happens to be a program that some believe, you know, if it is cut 
could harm some of the nonmilitary aid that we are providing Ukraine. I 
share that belief.
  Now, I have been told as late as yesterday that will not be one of 
the cuts, and so I am willing to move forward and vote on this bill on 
the assumption that that comes to pass. However, if we find out that 
some of these programs that we have communicated should be out of 
bounds, that advisers to the President decide that they are going to 
cut anyway, then there will be a reckoning for that. It won't be in 
this bill, but this is only a small bill. This is a $9 billion 
rescissions package, folks.
  We have been told that through DOGE there should be $1 trillion or $2 
trillion in savings. The reason why it is so important to get this 
rescissions bill right is because if confidences are betrayed with a $9 
billion bill, do you really think you are going to have the support for 
wide-open, ``trust us'' decisions for future larger decisions?
  In other words, if my confidence is betrayed here, then I won't vote 
for another rescissions bill, unless we have that line-item 
programming. But I am willing to go through this exercise, and, 
hopefully, we can trust the administration to not go down the path that 
we have been assured that they won't when they are given this broad 
ability to make up to about $7 billion in cuts.
  Now, some of them are obvious. People are going to say: Well, Tillis, 
you are worried about--pick some sort of liberal program in some part 
of the world. Well, obviously, we are not. There are a lot of things 
that we can cut where scope creep, or fraud, or abuse exists, but some 
of these programs will have life impacts.
  I was in Kenya, in Nairobi outside of Kenya. I was at a Sudanese 
refugee camp a couple months ago. And what struck me in this refugee 
camp were these American signs in a maternal ward with children that 
had distended bellies. They had flies crawling all over them, expectant 
mothers sick, and they were thankful that they had that condition to 
bring their children to and to potentially get support for expectant 
mothers. They were thankful for those conditions that we would find 
abominable in this country, and they were willing to give the United 
States credit to give them those conditions.

  Those are the kinds of programs that I am imploring the 
administration to not touch when given the broad authority that they 
will get with this bill--because if they do, it could be the end to 
billions of dollars that we could potentially rescind if we don't do 
one of two things in this bill: No. 1, get this authority and cut 
programs like I just described in Kenya or Ukraine or get this 
authority and betray a confidence with our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle in a spending decision that was used to fund the 
government.
  We have got this yearend appropriations we have to work on--September 
30. We have got to fund the government. Now, how likely is it that 
Democrats are going to come with us--the only way we can fund the 
government is to get at least seven Democrats to vote with us at the 
end of September 30 or we could go into a shutdown.
  If I am a Democrat and you are trying to get me to vote and get to a 
60-vote threshold to fund the government and you have just betrayed a 
prior agreement and a prior appropriation, what is the likelihood that 
they are going to do that? So if we don't get agreement, if I see any 
rescissions that are betraying a confidence that we as U.S. Senators 
made to get the government funded, that is going to be a problem for me 
in the next rescissions bill.
  Now, somebody may say I am showboating or doing something else by 
coming to the floor and doing this, but, folks, I am trying to protect 
this administration from itself in terms of future decisions that will 
make our job more difficult to govern here.
  I want the President to be successful with these rescissions 
packages. I want the people advising him to know how they execute will 
determine whether or not President Trump is ultimately successful.


                            Federal Reserve

  Mr. President, so that is all I have to say about that, but I do have 
a brief comment before I relinquish the floor, and I apologize to my 
friend and colleague from New Hampshire.
  There has been some talk about potentially firing the Fed Chair. And 
I think probably people need to be educated on how--the Fed really only 
has two things that they need to do: They need to keep unemployment 
low, and they need to manage inflation. It is called a dual mandate.
  Now, some people may actually think that Chair Powell just has broad 
authority to set policies around that and that by firing him or 
replacing him then everything is good, that person can make good 
decisions that a given administration likes. Folks, there is something 
called the FOMC, which has 12 voting members and 7 members that come 
into the discussion when we are talking about policies around rates.
  Twelve of them have to vote for a rate increase to occur. No one 
person, including the Chair, can influence that unless there is a 
consensus. So if anybody thinks that firing Chair Powell is going to 
change their focus and their method on the dual mandate, simply, they 
don't know what they are talking about. They don't know how this whole 
process works, and I hope they do because the consequence of firing a 
Fed Chair just because political people don't agree with that economic 
decision will be to undermine the credibility of the United States 
going forward. And I would argue, if it happens, you are going to see a 
pretty immediate response, and we have got to avoid that.
  Look, I have had problems with Chair Powell, but at the end of the 
day, I respect him, and I respect the independence of the Fed. And if 
anybody thinks that it would be a good idea for the Fed

[[Page S4394]]

to become another Agency within the administration, subject to whatever 
the President's advisers want him to do, they are making a huge 
mistake, and they really need to study how that process works.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                                 H.R. 4

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as we consider 
a rescissions package that would cancel billions of dollars in foreign 
assistance. It would make permanent the cuts that were carried out by 
DOGE earlier this year.
  That was when this administration gave Elon Musk the authority to put 
American foreign aid programs through the woodchipper. They justified 
those cuts by saying they would save money. But here we are 6 months 
later, not only have they passed a reconciliation bill that increases 
the national debt by more than $3 trillion, that shifts the financial 
burden to State and local governments. In New Hampshire, there is going 
to be a massive cost shift because of the passage of that bill. And for 
all the talk about saving money, I don't think DOGE has saved a dime.
  Earlier this spring, CBS News reported that the Federal Government 
has spent $200 billion more in its first 100 days this year than it did 
last year. And according to the Partnership for Public Service, DOGE's 
cuts could cost American taxpayers as much as $135 billion this year 
alone.
  And this rescissions package is no better. And the substitute that we 
have seen so far is a gimmick. It claims to preserve funding for global 
health programs like HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, for agriculture 
research, for the Countering PRC Influence Fund, but it doesn't 
actually restore those funds.
  So a vote for the substitute is a vote to cut critical foreign 
assistance programs. And one thing is clear, while American diplomacy 
and foreign aid amount to less than 1 percent--less than 1 percent of 
our Federal budget--the return on that investment delivers real 
dividends to American consumers and American businesses.
  As you can see, U.S. development assistance supports more than 
100,000 U.S. jobs. This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
minority released a report that highlights what cutting these programs 
does.
  This is the report. I think the Presiding Officer has seen it in the 
committee. It is called ``The Price of Retreat: America Cedes Global 
Leadership to China.''
  What has been done in these foreign assistance programs helps China 
expand its influence. Through research and staff travel and meetings 
with NGOs and foreign officials, the report shows that the Trump 
administration's cuts to the State Department, to foreign assistance, 
and to other programs directly threaten our national security and our 
prosperity.
  They severely undermine our ability to compete with our main 
adversary, China, and they do that both in the national security space 
and in the economic space.
  You know, Secretary Rubio said at his confirmation hearing: ``The 
most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever 
confronted'' is China.
  It is true. The People's Republic of China presents the United States 
with a strategic challenge that is distinct from any in our Nation's 
history. While our competition with China often seems distant from the 
United States, the reality is the outcome of this competition is deeply 
tied to our economy, to our security, and to our lives here at home--
because whether we are combating unfair trade practices and the thefts 
of intellectual property or we are stopping the flow of fentanyl into 
our communities or protecting Americans from spying and cyber attacks 
or helping U.S. companies stay ahead in developing batteries, electric 
vehicles, and AI, the stakes are very high, and the threat to our 
prosperity and our security is real.
  I don't think most Americans want to live in a world where the 
Chinese Communist Party is driving the agenda. But instead of strength 
and focus, what we have seen from this administration is a chaotic, 
haphazard retreat from the global stage.
  Oh, they talk a good game on the danger that China poses, but actions 
speak louder than words. And when it comes to confronting Beijing, this 
administration has no consistent message and no coherent strategy. And 
they are eliminating critical programs: disease surveillance and 
prevention, scientific research, and disaster response.
  And now--now--we just had a hearing in the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and we talked about this. The Trump administration is 
preparing to incinerate 500 tons of emergency food--500 tons. And the 
cost of that food was $800,000. It has already been paid for by 
taxpayers, and it is going to cost another $130,000 to incinerate it.
  So talk about waste. That is enough food to feed 1.5 million children 
for a week.
  Thanks to chaotic and inept decisions, cutting funding, firing staff, 
and gutting key programs, American taxpayers are going to foot the bill 
for this, and children are going to go hungry.
  These erratic, self-defeating policies are in stark contrast to what 
we are seeing from the Chinese Communist Party, which has been, sadly, 
very clear and deliberate in its strategy because the PRC is playing 
the long game. It is using tactics like disinformation, political 
interference, cyber attacks, and economic coercion.
  Within days of cuts to foreign aid programs, China was already 
labeling the United States as an unreliable partner. And within months, 
Beijing was replacing programs that we had cut.
  So look where we are today. You can look at the number of cuts to 
American embassies and consulates around the world. And while the 
administration proposes slashing America's international affairs budget 
by 84 percent, China is boosting its diplomatic budget by 8 percent. As 
we cut diplomatic staff and consider embassy closures, China operates 
one of the world's largest diplomatic missions, with 278 missions. And 
while the United States shuts down networks like Radio Free Asia, China 
is spending billions on propaganda, expanding into 80 new frequencies 
and more languages.
  Our first hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, at the 
beginning of this year, was on China, and what we heard at that hearing 
was that the PRC--China--is spending more than a billion dollars a year 
on misinformation and disinformation campaigns.
  And what have we done in response? We have cut Radio Free Asia. We 
have cut those networks that provide information to the people who 
China is trying to manipulate.
  So while we are cutting counternarcotics programs, China is working 
with Latin American countries to build law enforcement capacity. And as 
the administration moves to defund international bodies like the U.N., 
China has pledged more than $500 million to the World Health 
Organization.
  And, you know, it is so crazy. The administration has been attacking 
universities like Harvard and saying that they are not going to allow 
them to include any international students. And what is Hong Kong doing 
on behalf of the PRC? They are offering places to talented stem 
students who are looking to leave the United States.
  And while we threaten allies with tariffs, China is courting them 
across Europe, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere.
  In May, Xi Jinping hosted Brazil's President and other Latin American 
leaders and pledged more than $9 billion in investments.
  I was with a group of Senators at the Paris Air Show earlier this 
year. It is an exhibition that highlights the latest in aircraft and 
aerospace and military aircraft. And when we met with our embassy 
officials, they told us that they saw the biggest presence ever from 
China at that exhibition and that China has opened three new consulates 
in France and over 20 Confucius Institutes in France.

  So China is not just looking at Africa, at the Indo-Pacific. They are 
looking at countries that have been our traditional allies. And what is 
the administration doing? It is suggesting that it is going to close 
U.S. diplomatic posts in these same regions.
  China is eating our lunch when it comes to diplomacy, when it comes 
to the investments that we need to make around the world. And yet here 
we are

[[Page S4395]]

today. We are considering a rescissions package that is going to 
further benefit the Chinese Communist Party.
  Leaders across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, have agreed, since I got to the U.S. Senate--and I thought the 
administration agreed with us--that the biggest threat to America's 
security, both economic and national security, is China--the People's 
Republican of China.
  We need to come together. We need to make sure that America doesn't 
retreat from the global stage. And the good news is that, despite the 
cuts, despite the administration's policies, there is still broad, 
bipartisan agreement that American leadership on the global stage is 
essential and that China's expanding global footprint makes us less 
safe and less prosperous.
  So to my colleagues here in Congress who are considering this 
rescissions package that would codify these cuts, remember this: It is 
not too late. We can move to reverse the damage that has been done in 
the first 6 months. We can preserve America's ability to lead, to 
compete, and to shape the future on America's terms, not on the terms 
of the Chinese Communist Party.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, eight times since 1974, when Congress 
created the rescissions process, one party has controlled the White 
House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives--eight times. It is 
actually four times Democratic control and four times Republican 
control. Eight times one party had total control over the elements of 
the Federal Government necessary to pass legislation. And never before 
has either party done what Republicans are doing today: pass a partisan 
rescissions bill, double-crossing the minority party, and canceling 
spending that just months before both parties shook hands on.
  Why? Why has this never happened before? Well, because this is just 
an old-fashioned doublecross. It is a con job. Republicans and 
Democrats agreed on spending levels--first, in a bipartisan 
appropriations bill passed in March of 2023, and then again in multiple 
bipartisan continuing resolutions.
  When a party controls the White House and both Houses of Congress, it 
always has the power to use the rescissions process to pull a fast one: 
to agree with the minority party on a budget--because the rules say 
that you need 60 votes to pass a budget--to get majority party 
priorities funded in exchange for funding minority party priorities, 
and then to use the rescissions process to just doublecross the 
minority by using that process, which only requires 50 votes, to just 
then cancel the minority parties' priorities.
  That is immoral. It is unethical--suckering your partner into a deal 
in which you get something and they get something and then using the 
back door to cancel the part of the deal that you don't like. That is 
bad faith. It is why no party has done it since 1972.
  The power has always existed. Eight different times, either the 
Democratic Party or the Republican Party could have cut a bipartisan 
spending deal and then used the rescissions power to just cancel the 
parts of the deal they didn't like. But it has never happened because 
it is bad faith, because it destroys the ability of the Senate to 
function in a bipartisan way.
  It is kind of like, if you traded baseball cards as a kid and you 
made a trade with your best friend, and then, in the middle of the 
night, you snuck into his house, and you took your cards back, so that 
you had his cards, and now you had your cards as well. Nobody would 
think that is right. But that is exactly what is happening here.
  It will become hard, maybe even impossible--Senator Tillis laid this 
out very well--to write a bipartisan budget ever again because the 
minority party now knows that they can get doublecrossed.
  And believe me, if Republicans do this now, Democrats are going to do 
it when they are in charge. This will become the norm.
  Sit down. Do a bipartisan deal--wink, wink--and then, a couple months 
later, just cancel the agreement through a partisan rescissions 
process.
  And, of course, this is now the third time in 7 short months that the 
new Republican majority has made substantial, meaningful changes to 
Senate rules and norms. Senate Republicans created a brandnew rule that 
massively expands their ability to invalidate actions of the previous 
Democratic administration. Just a couple weeks ago, Republicans walked 
away from decades of precedent on how Senate bills are scored, and they 
used new magic math to create a score that hid the actual cost of their 
budget plan--and now this double-cross.
  But this isn't just about breaking the Senate. That is actually, 
probably, the least serious consequence of what is happening here. The 
most serious consequence is what is happening to American power around 
the world as Donald Trump and Republicans, in part through this 
rescissions bill, destroy every single nonmilitary tool that we use 
around the world to protect our interests.
  When I was, like, 8 or 9 years old, I collected G.I. Joe figures. And 
one Christmas, I remember being so excited because Santa Claus brought 
me the huge G.I. Joe aircraft carrier. It was awesome. I was obsessed 
with the military, like a lot of boys that age--the planes, the tanks, 
the ships. That is what I thought American power was--the U.S. 
military--period, stop.
  And, of course, that is an 8-year-old's view of the world. The world, 
as it turns out, is a lot more complicated. You need a lot more than 
just planes and tanks and ships to protect your interests. You need a 
powerful military. But adults--in particular, adults who have any 
experience in national security--know that the octopus of global power 
has a lot of arms: military might but also information might, economic 
might, diplomatic might, energy might, and humanitarian might.

  This rescissions bill cancels billions of dollars in investments in 
nonmilitary foreign policy tools, and it is a part of a broader effort 
by the Trump administration to destroy almost every tool that protects 
American interests other than our military.
  Over the last 10 years, the defense budget has grown from about $502 
billion to $825 billion. That is an extraordinary 10-year increase of 
about $323 billion. Over that same period of time, the State Department 
budget has grown from $54 billion to $56 billion--a $2 billion 
increase. If you layer in emergency funds, that increase is more like 
$30 billion. But you are still talking about an increase for the 
military over the past 10 years that is 10 times the size of the 
increase for nonmilitary tools.
  This military myopia makes me remember my 8-year-old self because it 
is so childish, it is so immature, it is so divorced from reality. 
Donald Trump's national security strategy--fund the military and 
destroy every other way that we confront Russia, China, Iran, nonstate 
actors--it could have been constructed by an 8-year-old. It is that 
unsophisticated.
  It really amounts to surrender because as we stop projecting 
nonmilitary power around the world, China and Russia but especially 
China--they just celebrate and step into the void.
  Secretary Rubio announced on March 10 that 83 percent of USAID 
programs will be terminated. Meanwhile, China just announced an 8.4-
percent increase in its own diplomatic budget for 2025, committing 500 
million additional dollars to the World Health Organization over the 
next 5 years--an organization that the United States no longer belongs 
to.
  As a result of our cuts, standing next to China's investments in 
diplomatic power, China will surpass the United States this year for 
the first time as the largest bilateral assistance partner for 40 
countries. China is now the power at the World Health Organization. 
They call the shots about the standards of global health and pandemic 
relief. China is now the preferred economic development partner for 
many nations. China is now the dominant force in standard-setting 
boards for global commerce.
  This is a choice the Trump administration is making to make China--
and to a certain extent Russia, in certain forms--the dominant power 
when it comes to economic statecraft, information statecraft, energy 
statecraft.
  Let me give you a specific example. Today, information is power. If 
you control information flows, you control politics, you control 
economics, and

[[Page S4396]]

you control culture. China spends about $7 billion a year to promote 
their communist narrative, undermine U.S. leadership around the world, 
and foster a China-friendly media environment globally. Russia--it is 
hard to know how much Russia spends because they are not publicly 
reporting much of it, but they certainly spend at least $1.5 billion 
but probably double that.
  In many countries, Russia and China control the information space. 
Russian-backed candidates win elections in countries on their periphery 
simply because of Russian information programs. Asian countries boxed 
the United States and U.S. companies out of economic competition 
because of Chinese information programs.
  Faced with China and Russia spending somewhere in the neighborhood of 
$10 billion, where the United States today is spending only a fraction 
of that amount of money, it would stand to reason that this would be a 
moment where we should come together, Republicans and Democrats, and 
dramatically increase our information warfare investments, but, of 
course, we are doing exactly the opposite. Trump is in the middle of a 
powerful, relentless campaign to destroy--to destroy--America's global 
information power.
  The Trump administration just shut down the Global Engagement Center. 
That is the capacity of the State Department to try to counter Russian 
and Chinese propaganda around the world. Gone. Just gone. The Global 
Engagement Center was a bipartisan commitment set up years ago by 
myself and Rob Portman, supported by Marco Rubio when he was a Senator. 
Now it just doesn't exist any longer.
  The administration is dismantling the U.S. Agency for Global Media, 
the umbrella arm that oversees our information programs around the 
world. They laid off 92 percent of its staff. Voice of America, the 
Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free 
Asia are on track to disappear. The arm of VOA that combats Iranian 
anti-American information--gone. Fifty-four different radio frequencies 
operated by Radio Free Asia to counter Chinese anti-American 
propaganda--gone. At the same time, China is opening up 80 new radio 
frequencies in multiple languages, including in those regions where 
America is disappearing.

  We are handing the world to China and Russia by deciding to view 
American power only through a military lens. This rescissions bill 
makes it worse by enacting billions of dollars of cuts to diplomacy, to 
economic development programs, and likely to information programs 
because we actually can't see the impact of all of these cuts.
  It is all surrender. China is throwing a blowout party as we 
disappear our nonmilitary power from the world.
  Trump terminated tens of millions of dollars from projects to upgrade 
Africa's power grid. What did China do? They announced $50 billion of 
new financing for Africa--Africa, a place where the critical minerals 
exist to power AI and future defense systems; Africa, the part of the 
world whose economy is going to explode with opportunity--now 
opportunity that will go to Chinese companies, not American companies, 
as we withdraw our relationships with that continent and as China steps 
into the breach.
  This rescissions bill, standing next to Trump's destruction of all 
our nonmilitary foreign policy tools, is surrender to our enemies.
  This bill is a doublecross. It is. It is a doublecross. It is going 
to harm our ability to ever be able to do a bipartisan budget process 
in the future. But even worse, this bill is surrender to our 
adversaries who are chomping at the bit to fill the void that we are 
creating by adopting the national security strategy of an 8-year-old 
boy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, it was just a few weeks ago on this 
Senate floor that our Republican colleagues, on a straight party-line 
vote, cut millions and millions of dollars--billions of dollars from 
investments in healthcare, like Medicaid. As a result, millions and 
millions of Americans are going to lose access to healthcare. And for 
what? All for a giant tax giveaway that disproportionately benefits the 
very wealthiest in America. They called it the Big Beautiful Bill. It 
was beautiful if you are a billionaire. For everybody else, it came at 
your expense in one form or another.
  Now here today on the floor of the Senate, we have Republicans 
bringing a partisan bill once again--this time to cut $9 billion in 
important investments, including from public radio and public 
television and, as my colleague Senator Murphy just indicated, from 
very important foreign assistance programs that are essential to 
American diplomacy and ultimately to American power and interests 
around the world.
  This is not ``America First''; this is ``America in retreat'' or 
President Trump surrendering.
  To add insult to injury, these cuts are coming after Republicans in 
this very body and the House of Representatives passed and President 
Trump signed into law provisions that included the very programs we are 
talking about cutting today. In other words, this is a total switcheroo 
where one day, Republicans vote for a package that includes essential 
investments, and the next day, they turn around on a party-line vote 
and erase the investments that were just signed into law. That will 
undermine the entire appropriations process.
  I have been listening to comments from some of my Republican 
colleagues, and they say this is about reducing the national debt. I am 
all for reducing our deficits and our debt. But I ask my Republican 
colleagues, if you really cared about fiscal responsibility and 
deficits and the debt, what happened 2 weeks ago on the floor of the 
Senate? Because Republican Senators pulled all-nighters in order to 
pass legislation that resulted in the largest debt increase in American 
history, throwing away trillions of dollars to in part pay for tax cuts 
for billionaires.
  That bill that passed the Senate just 2 weeks ago will add $4 
trillion to our national debt. Why is that? Because even after they 
made cuts to Medicaid, which will throw millions of Americans off their 
healthcare, even after that, the tax cuts that disproportionately 
benefit wealthy people were so big that it is still going to explode 
the deficit by $4 trillion.
  Now here they come 2 weeks later to pass this rescissions bill that 
cuts very important services and very important components of our 
foreign policy for $9 billion. Mr. President, that is 0.23 of 1 percent 
of the debt that the Republican Senators voted to increase just 2 weeks 
ago.
  So nobody is fooling anybody when Senators come down to the floor and 
say ``We have got to do this because of our national debt,'' having 
exploded the national debt by $4 trillion just 2 weeks ago.
  So what does this package include? Well, it includes cuts to public 
radio. That includes NPR. It includes PBS. Also, public television is 
cut. So we explode the debt by $4 trillion 2 weeks ago, and this week, 
we are coming after Big Bird. That is their solution to dealing with 
the national debt.
  If you look at the cuts to public radio, they can have very harmful 
impacts around the country because in many rural areas especially, 
people do use access to public radio to get alerts about natural 
disasters. So this would put those communities at risk.
  This is part of a pattern. It is part of a pattern we are seeing in 
the funds being withheld by this Trump White House that we already 
passed. Here, we are talking about cutting funds through this partisan 
process, but the Trump White House is unilaterally withholding 
important funds for disaster relief.
  We learned after the tragic flooding in Texas that claimed so many 
lives that FEMA failed to answer nearly two-thirds of the calls on its 
disaster assistance line because the Trump administration had cut so 
much of the FEMA staff.
  In my State of Maryland, a number of months ago, we witnessed 
terrible flooding in the western part of our State. In fact, some of 
you may have seen the images of elementary school students being 
evacuated from their school on boats. Fortunately, no one died in that 
flood, but the damage was extensive.
  We are still waiting on the Trump administration to answer our 
State's request for some help for those families and small businesses 
that were hit.
  Now, this is a pattern that goes beyond just disaster relief. In 
Maryland,

[[Page S4397]]

we have also seen cuts to FEMA programs designed to protect communities 
and let them have the resources to put in place protections like higher 
walls so that they are not victims of natural disasters. Those funds 
were cut. So we see those cuts to those essential programs.
  We are also seeing this across the board when it comes to global 
health. I am not going to go through all of those cuts. Some of my 
colleagues have identified those. I will just say that our foreign 
assistance is not charity. Our foreign assistance, as colleagues have 
said, has been an essential element of our overall foreign policy. If 
you talk to wise generals at the Defense Department, they will tell you 
that our national security and foreign policy strategy rest on three 
pillars: Yes, of course, defense and military power but also on 
diplomacy and development. So, when you make these deep cuts that are 
impacting diplomacy and development, including, by the way, the 1,300 
patriotic State Department employees who were just fired last week--
when you do that, it is our adversaries who benefit, and it is the 
American people who lose, along with our allies, because those are not 
giveaways, those investments.
  You know, if your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't just sit in 
your house and let your neighbor's house burn. You go help them out 
because they are your neighbors, and it is the right thing to do, but 
it is also the smart thing to do because that fire may be heading to 
your house next.
  And when it comes to issues like global health and the spread of 
disease around the world, it is the same story: We save millions of 
lives, including millions of kids' lives whom we help, but we also 
prevent those diseases from jumping over the oceans and coming to hurt 
people right here in the United States of America.
  But this administration doesn't care. If you look at a Lancet study, 
they have estimated that the cuts that the Trump administration has 
made in the area of global health and other important investments will 
cost 14 million lives by the year 2030, including 4.5 million children 
who will die. We just saw a story in The Atlantic that revealed the 
Trump administration is paying to incinerate--to light on fire--500 
tons of emergency nutritional biscuits that could go to feed hungry 
kids.
  So I really urge my colleagues to take a step back and not move 
forward with these cuts. As I said, the notion that this is somehow 
their contribution to reducing our national debt when they exploited 
our national debt by $4 trillion over 10 years just 2 weeks ago is 
ludicrous.
  But I will close, since I see the vice chair of the Appropriations 
Committee on the floor, with just a final point that does deserve 
repeating, which is that we have had a bipartisan appropriations 
process, and we have done our very best to preserve that tradition, but 
when you take an action on one day and we vote on a bipartisan basis 
for important American priorities, whether in public radio or in 
addressing global health issues--when we do that one day and the 
President of the United States signs that into law and then we run down 
here a few months later and say, ``Do you know what? We didn't mean it 
with respect to these programs, and we, on a partisan basis, are going 
to yank them away,'' that undermines trust and confidence in this 
entire system.
  So both for the American people and the important investments that we 
did make, which they will now lose, but also for the future of this 
institution and the power of the purse, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be permitted to speak prior to votes: myself for up to 10 
minutes, Senator Cantwell for up to 10 minutes, Senator Murray for 5 
minutes, and Senator Schumer for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, ``Jesus wept.'' ``Jesus wept.'' Most of us 
who grew up in Bible-believing households know this is the shortest 
verse in all of Scripture and, in some ways, the most powerful--one 
that haunts me. ``Jesus wept'' in John, the 11th chapter, 35th verse, 
because he had come too late, seemingly, to save the life of Lazarus. 
He wept because someone he knew and loved had died, and it had caused 
such harm and loss to his family.
  Today, we are doing something on the floor of this Senate--my 
Republican colleagues are doing something on the floor of this Senate--
that I believe would make Jesus weep.

  In Luke, there is a moment in the 10th chapter where a lawyer--and it 
is always a lawyer--comes to test Jesus and, in trying to justify 
himself, presses Jesus with questions.
  What must I do to gain eternal life?
  Jesus says: What does the Scripture teach?
  He says: You should love the Lord your God with all your heart and 
all your soul and all your mind. The second commandment is like unto 
it. You should love your neighbor as yourself.
  Jesus says: You have read well. Do this, and you will gain eternal 
life.
  But the lawyer, hoping to be justified, says: But--but--but wait. Who 
is my neighbor?
  And what follows is the well-known ``Parable of the Good Samaritan,'' 
where the righteous, the priestly, the respected, the powerful walk on 
the other side of the road when they encounter someone who has been set 
upon by robbers: not my problem, not my neighbor. But in the ``Parable 
of the Good Samaritan,'' it is this person, a Samaritan, from a 
disfavored ethnicity--someone outside the circle of concern to the 
ancient Israelites--who does the right thing.
  This parable would have been shocking at the time that it was 
preached by Jesus. The idea that the good neighbor was the outcast, the 
unexpected would be something that, frankly, would have been a 
surprise. So although today ``being a good Samaritan'' is a common 
term, it is important to know the history.
  We are taught as children that we are to see all as our neighbors, 
not just those who live next-door, not just those who look like us or 
speak like us or pray like us, but the widest possible definition of 
``neighbor'' is what we are called through righteousness to see in the 
world. What a difference it has made because our Nation has, for 
decades, embraced the cause of being present, of caring, of making 
lifesaving differences to young mothers and children, to widows and 
orphans, to the imprisoned, to the hungry, to the refugee, to those 
fleeing oppression, to those seeking relief from authoritarian 
governments, for those seeking a better way.
  We are all God's children. And from childhood, we are taught that the 
Golden Rule, which appears in virtually every religion--``Do unto 
others as you would have them do unto you''--is the very foundation of 
the goodness of America: that we care for each other as neighbors and 
that we care for the world as neighbors. Yes, we are the most 
charitable, giving, philanthropic, engaged Nation on Earth. Yet all 
that we do in foreign aid is less than 1 percent of our total Federal 
budget.
  Months ago, when Elon Musk and DOGE began roaming about the Federal 
Agencies of our government, their first target was that that delivers 
disaster relief; that helps feed the hungry; that helps welcome the 
refugee; that helps stabilize countries going through turmoil. They 
laid off thousands. They shut down programs. They canceled billions. 
Yet, here today, we are at it again. Republicans are proposing even 
deeper cuts. I want to talk about one area of the many that will be 
cut, I fear, later today: disaster assistance.
  Our Nation was riveted as we watched the tragedy that unfolded in the 
Texas Hill Country, where a raging river killed dozens and dozens of 
innocent children. Do you know, around the world, when disaster 
strikes, it is the Americans who show up first? It is the Americans who 
show up with relief, with assistance, with skill and talent and 
ability. It has been this way for decades, and it should be this way 
still.
  I was on a bipartisan trip to the Philippines just a few months ago 
with Senator Ricketts, and I was struck to learn that the Philippines, 
of all the nations on Earth, is the most prone to natural disasters. 
They value our partnership, our alliance. We have been security 
partners for decades. There are many Filipino Americans, and there is a 
close and deep relationship. But in meeting with their national 
leaders,

[[Page S4398]]

their elected leaders--their Senators and their Ministers of their 
Cabinet--they said: You know, it makes an incredible difference here in 
the Philippines. Every time there is a typhoon, an earthquake, a 
volcano, it is the Americans who come. It is the Americans who deliver 
the aid, who help us help ourselves with training and equipment and 
support.
  Do you know, in the excess of DOGE's deep cuts, they fired and laid 
off most of our experts who were capable of delivering world-class 
disaster relief?
  We saw the consequences with an earthquake in Myanmar just 3 months 
ago, where the few remaining folks who did this work were laid off as 
they were deployed, and, instead, the response was led by the Chinese. 
We are driving nations into the open arms of our adversaries. We have 
long been known as a nation that sought to be respected, admired, 
believed in, and embraced not for the example of our power but by the 
power of our example; that when there were dread pandemics killing 
millions, America showed up.
  One of the positives of this day is that my Republican colleagues 
have recoiled from fully shutting down PEPFAR, and that is a positive. 
One of the best things we have ever done as a nation is to save 27 
million lives across the world who otherwise would have been lost to 
HIV/AIDS.
  But I will tell you, when Ebola raged across Africa in 2014, I was 
the one Member of Congress who went to Liberia at the request of the 
President--a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a brave and proud leader of a 
nation that was struggling, that was facing mass losses of life. 
Projections at the early stages of the Ebola pandemic were that a fifth 
to a quarter of their population would die in a matter of weeks. And 
who came to help? It was the Americans, Catholic Relief Services, Save 
the Children, CARE, the U.S. military, and our Public Health Service.
  I will never forget meeting a young Liberian named Alvin. He dropped 
out of college to become a physician assistant to help when the 
outbreak began, and he, in caring for patients, himself contracted 
Ebola, a near-certain death sentence. Yet Alvin was evacuated by the 
Americans to the Ebola treatment center that had been set up and funded 
and equipped by Americans, and his life was saved by Americans.
  Whether it was the President of the nation, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, or 
Alvin, the folks I met on that trip to Liberia thanked and praised the 
American people for our decency, our kindness, and our seeing them as 
our neighbor in their moments of deepest struggle, risk, and loss. Yet 
today--yet today--my colleagues would rather trim one-tenth of 1 
percent of the budget--$9 billion--to cut deeper into food aid and 
disaster assistance and in fighting pandemics--all to justify a tax 
cut. I can think of few more despicable acts on this floor in my 15 
years. I can speak to process. We have a bipartisan appropriations 
process, where we can and should debate and consider these further cuts 
and put them on the floor and vote them up, but this is an odd thing. 
It is a rescission. It is a cutting back further of money we have 
already appropriated.

  Just a few minutes later today, I will be trying to get votes to end 
$465 million of further cuts in disaster assistance that will be on the 
floor today, taking money from the World Food Programme and UNICEF, 
from Red Cross and Save the Children, from Catholic Relief Services and 
World Vision.
  Folks may think at home that this money that goes out to the world is 
money better spent here, but for the pennies on the Federal dollar that 
we spend responding to disasters around the world, organizations we all 
know and the majority of us believe in and support--like the Red Cross, 
World Vision, or Catholic Relief Services--are able to appear in time 
and deliver lifesaving aid.
  Think about what we are doing. Think about the example we are 
setting. Think about what we are teaching our children. Open your 
hearts and eyes and realize what we are about to do.
  This is a nation of which I am so proud, and yet at times it does 
things of which I am so ashamed. I cannot imagine the faces in the 
refugee camps, in the villages, in the clinics, in the schools, in the 
towns, in the cities around the world who, for years, have been used to 
the idea that when there is a pandemic, the Americans come; that when 
there is an earthquake, the Americans come; that when there is 
starvation, the Americans come.
  Today, we will vote, no, we won't. We are more interested in 
ourselves and in a bigger tax cut than we are in saving starving 
children--people laid low by the devastation of an earthquake, families 
suffering by a typhoon. The best part of this Nation, what truly makes 
us great, is our selfless giving to others.
  We will be judged by how we act today, for God's justice is swift and 
sure. And I tremble when I think about the answer this Chamber will 
give today to the question: Who is my neighbor?
  Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we should turn aside. We should 
not, with this act and this vote today, make Jesus weep.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are about to vote on this package, but 
I wanted to first make sure my colleagues understood that we are not 
just voting on whether local news stations shut down or whether 
communities can get information in an emergency or whether or not 
America retreats on the world's stage and break its word or whether or 
not we let children die of hunger or preventable diseases just to save 
a few pennies. All of that is at stake here, but there is a lot more at 
stake as well, like whether we allow partisan rescissions to cut 
bipartisan funds for the first time ever--colleagues need to understand 
that, for the first time ever--or whether Russ Vought can steamroll 
this body and whether Republicans will pass a bill of cuts when they 
don't even know what is in it.
  I mean, really, I have heard Members complain to high heaven about 
not having time to read a bill before voting on it. Well, this is even 
worse. The administration has outright refused to tell us what will get 
cut if Republicans pass this bill. Even the Republican leader admits 
that. This is a Pandora's box of cuts.
  What I want to leave my colleagues with is this: We are not just 
voting on the devastating cuts in this package, we are also voting on 
how the Senate is going to spend the rest of the year. Are we just 
going to do rescission after rescission? Because we know Russ Vought is 
just itching to send us more. And as you have all seen throughout this 
process and as we have seen at every hearing we have had with him, he 
doesn't care if you feel steamrolled; he doesn't care if you want more 
details; he doesn't care whether you want different cuts.
  So the vote before us right now is really about do we--we are elected 
representatives, all of us--want to write the laws and even consider 
targeted rescissions within those bills? Do we want to have time to 
move them on the floor or do we want to spend every day, every week 
here debating how much of the last spending bill to unravel and whose 
communities get robbed?
  This will not be a hard vote for me, and it really should not be a 
hard vote for any one of us.
  I am a strong no, and I hope all of our colleagues will join us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a few moments, we will begin voting on 
amendments to the Republican rescissions package. Let's start with the 
devastating consequences of passing this bill as written.
  The bill will starve local news and radio stations so essential, 
particularly in rural areas, for people hearing about weather events. 
We learned the tragedy of untimely notification in Texas recently. It 
was very terrible. It could happen again with these kinds of cuts.
  The bill will harm America's farmers and researchers and businesses; 
make the world an easier place, unfortunately, for terrorist 
recruitment; and reward communist China and Vladimir Putin--all so 
Republicans can keep paying for billionaire tax cuts.
  And the most galling part: Republicans are rushing forward without a 
clue how these unhinged cuts will be

[[Page S4399]]

implemented. That is not just me expressing an opinion. That is what 
Republicans themselves admit. That is what the chair of the 
Appropriations Committee admits. That is what the majority leader 
admitted today, that Republicans don't even know how OMB and DOGE are 
going to rearrange these cuts. Yet they are voting for it.
  Republicans are putting a blindfold over their own eyes and leading 
rural Americans off a cliff just to make Donald Trump and his 
billionaire friends happy.
  Well, Democrats are not here to merely rubberstamp whatever Donald 
Trump does, like the Republicans are doing. Today, my Senate Democratic 
colleagues and I will make clear the damage this package will have on 
Americans and on our national security.
  For one, we will expose the terrible things Republicans have stuffed 
in this bill. They want to starve local news stations, defund local 
radio stations, cripple disaster alerts, abandon Native Tribes, isolate 
rural Americans, and erode America's leadership on the world stage. 
These amendments will show how the Republican bill makes America weaker 
while making our adversaries stronger.
  I, for one, will push an amendment on the floor stopping Republicans 
from cutting funds necessary to resist the Chinese Communist Party, 
beat them in the race for precious minerals vital to our new 
technologies, and prevent them from spreading their nefarious cyber 
attacks around the world.
  My amendment will also stop Republicans from cutting vital funds to 
our partners in the Indo-Pacific, who are the first line of defense 
against aggression from communist China.
  We will also be ready to offer amendments that take Republicans to 
task when they claim they want to improve this bill but only offer 
tweaks that look good on paper without solving the issues they claim to 
care about. For example, Republicans say they want to protect rural 
communities, so we have amendments that will actually stand up for 
rural communities instead of making cosmetic tweaks at the margin that 
Republicans might try to push.
  Republicans say they stand with local TV and radio stations and want 
to protect those communities from cuts, so we have amendments that will 
actually halt these awful cuts and keep these places whole--not some 
commitment to one State and one Senator from OMB but actually 
preventing these cuts from occurring across America.
  Republicans say they want to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party, 
to get tough on Putin, and to protect funding for global disease and 
preventing the spread of terrorism, so we have amendments that will 
ensure these vital programs are not cut.
  If Republicans oppose these commonsense amendments, they are simply 
not serious about protecting local communities and the foreign aid they 
profess to care about.
  Democrats will also push amendments to mitigate its harms on local 
communities and prevent Republicans from unilaterally eviscerating 
funds that benefit tens of millions of people.
  The matter is very simple. Republicans themselves have admitted that 
this bill as written right now is a black box of cuts, and they have no 
idea how these cuts will be implemented. So if they are serious--really 
serious--about standing up for local TV and radio, if they truly care 
about national security, if they say they want to protect communities 
from harmful cuts, they should prove it--prove it today--by supporting 
our amendments. Actions speak a heck of a lot louder than words.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, while we are waiting for our colleague 
to come, if I could make remarks.
  My colleague, I so appreciate Senator Murray and Leader Schumer out 
here speaking on these important issues. But as a committee who has 
thought a lot about storms lately, we are not just putting PBS at risk 
here, we are putting millions of Americans who depend on local media 
for lifesaving information at risk. And what is in this rescission 
request is really making sure that public broadcasters don't have that 
ability, at least in 20 States where they have emergency plans.
  So what happens is that NPR manages the Public Radio Satellite 
System. They receive emergency alerts. They tell us to get out of the 
way. PBS operates the Warning Alert and Response Network, which then 
transmits over 11,000 emergency alerts alone last year, a 30-percent 
increase from the previous year.
  So why are we talking about cutting off emergency alerts? That is 
11,000 times these stations were warned to tell people that their lives 
were in danger. Let me explain what PBS's warning system means for 
American families in plain English. When emergency managers, such as 
someone at FEMA or the National Weather Service or local officials hit 
send on a lifesaving alert, it normally travels through wireless 
carriers' infrastructure to reach cell towers.
  But what happens when there are cyberattacks or those infrastructures 
are crippled, when the fiber lines don't work or they are cut in a 
storm, when disaster like fire or flood or hurricane knocks them out? 
What happens to the communication infrastructure then? Well, that is 
what PBS WARN does. It fills in.
  PBS stations also on the radio, through the airwaves, because they 
don't have to rely on physical infrastructure, they basically 
communicate to more than 340 PBS stations nationwide. These stations, 
running on backup generators, are built to broadcast through disasters. 
I mean, I think if anybody has got any history to them, they realize 
that there has been lots of lifesaving information over the airwaves.
  So local infrastructure, like TV receivers, local regional 
facilities, grab that alert signal from the PBS broadcast, no internet 
required, and they get the information out to us. This system and these 
critical alerts are the primary thing that we use in the Nation when 
everything else goes dark.
  That means that every PBS transmitter becomes a backup lifetime line 
for emergency alerts, ensuring that warnings about tornadoes, fires, 
floods, and evacuations reach your cell phone in seconds.
  Just think about that. If you have this flood we had in Kerrville and 
you don't have a communication system, the PBS system is the one that 
sends the alerts because they have gotten it through the airwaves.
  This administration--and my colleagues now--want to pull the plug on 
this. Just look at yesterday's alerts alone on flash flooding in North 
Carolina, in central Texas, in Arizona, a statewide missing person 
alert in Kentucky, a tornado warning across Nebraska, South Dakota, and 
Wisconsin and dozens more.
  Why would we want anybody to miss a disaster alert? It could even be 
about boiling water and making sure that you have the right water. 
These are all important communication systems, and they are important 
when cell phones and the internet don't work. On November 30, 2018, a 
magnitude 7.1 earthquake shook southcentral Alaska. In Anchorage, roads 
split apart, buildings crumbled, power lines snapped, cell towers went 
down within seconds, and people panicked as they tried to reach loved 
ones. The internet failed, but Alaska Public Media never stopped 
broadcasting. Operating on backup power, they immediately activated 
their emergency protocols.
  As the aftershocks, including a 5.7 tremor, continued to rock the 
region, APM provided real-time updates on road closures, school 
evacuations, and tsunami warnings. They broadcasted which bridges had 
been damaged, where emergency shelters had opened, most critically 
assured isolated communities that the help was on the way. For 
thousands of Alaskans, that familiar voice on radio was their only 
connection to vital information during the most terrifying memories 
that they have had. In a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily 
News, one person wrote:

       Commercial radio may be helpful down south, but rural 
     Alaska is different.
       Pick any rural Alaskan community with exposure to these 
     dangers, and you will find

[[Page S4400]]

     probably that they don't have a commercial radio station. 
     They probably do receive the NPR station.
       ``In rural Alaska,'' they continued, ``there is no market 
     driven solution to ensure emergency broadcasts are available 
     in a disaster that recurs on a 100 year scale time.''

  So it is not just Alaska that has this problem. Consider what 
happened in Kentucky during the historic tornadoes in December of 2021, 
when the devastating EF4 tornado carved a 160-mile path of destruction 
on one of the longest tornado tracks in our Nation's history. WKMS 
Public Radio became the sole source of news for thousands of 
Kentuckians.
  As the tornado ripped through Mayfield at 9:30, destroying the town's 
candle factory with 110 people stuck inside, commercial power failed 
across western Kentucky. And those cell towers toppled; the internet 
connections vanished. And WKMS kept broadcasting on a backup power, 
guiding search and rescue teams through darkness. It is time that my 
colleagues understand that, in the words of station managers, ``In 
these kinds of moments, your emergency radio or your car radio is 
literally the only thing to have to get you any news or a lifeline.''
  I ask my colleagues, please do not cut off emergency broadcast 
funding. How could you possibly think that is a wise idea in the events 
that we are facing in our Nation?
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, we are here today. We are about to begin 
vote-arama--vote-arama. We seem to do this quite a bit these days, but 
we are here to do it on a very, very important bill: the rescissions 
package for President Trump.
  I spoke yesterday--and I won't go on for as long as I did yesterday--
about what this is all about. What this bill is about is to test the 
will of this Chamber--if we can actually move forward on what the 
American people sent us here to do, which is to find waste, to find 
fraud, and to find abuse; and also to realign the taxpayer dollars that 
go out the door with actual American interests.
  So we are going to have a lot of conversations about the foreign aid 
spending, and it has been certainly highlighted, as it should be--some 
of the ridiculousness and craziness.
  And my friend from Hawaii is talking about: Well, that is not going 
to happen anymore.
  Well, good, we don't need the money for it. But let's make sure it 
never happens again by sending a message that this Chamber can actually 
see what happened and course correct--$18 million to gender diversity 
in the Mexican street lighting industry, $2.4 million to make 
international disaster aid more considerate of sexual orientation and 
gender identity, $2.2 million to reduce xenophobia toward Venezuelan 
migrants, $3 million for Iraqi ``Sesame Street,'' and $33 million for 
U.N. programs like funding for transgender tampons in Bangladesh, LGBTQ 
campaigns in Rio, and third-gender community centers in Southeast Asia.
  If you are listening to this, if you are watching this, that is 
offensive. That is just a short laundry list in the ways in which these 
bureaucrats have betrayed the trust of the American people.
  So what is today about? It is our effort to try to restore not only 
just some fiscal sanity to this place, which everybody has talked 
about, even across the aisle--hopefully, maybe; I don't know--and not 
just that, but the political will to take that vote to go do it. Many, 
many legislators in many, many Senates over the generations have talked 
about doing this.
  In fact, President Ronald Reagan talked about getting rid of Federal 
money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the early 1980s. 
It didn't happen. But guess what. Today, we can actually go do that.
  We don't have to sit by anymore and continue to send the hard-earned 
tax dollars that are sent here by the guys that swing the hammer and 
the gals who drive the trucks back in Missouri, who should be mortified 
that they are spending money for the head of NPR to call the President 
a bigot, a racist; to look over the vast continent of our country and 
where I come from, ``Flyover Country,'' and look down on them and 
actually use our money for programming to tell them that, every single 
hour of every single day.
  Enough and enough.
  So that is the charge here today, Mr. President. Let the vote-arama 
begin.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of 
debate, equally divided, prior to each vote in relation to Calendar No. 
114, H.R. 4.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHIMTT. 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, Coons No. 2856; No. 2, Cortez Masto 
motion to recommit regarding CPB impacting public safety; No. 3, 
Gallego motion to recommit re: CPB rural/Tribal; No. 4, Hirono motion 
to recommit re: CPB emergency alert system; and, No. 5, Baldwin No. 
2855.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.


                Amendment No. 2856 to Amendment No. 2853

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2856 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Coons] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2856 to amendment No. 2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To strike the rescission of amounts made available for 
  international disaster assistance, to ensure the United States can 
 compete with China and maintain our long tradition of providing life-
                              saving aid)

        In section 2(b), strike paragraph (14).
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, it was Ronald Reagan who said America is 
great because America is good. My amendment would restore $496 million 
of international disaster relief funding by removing it from this 
rescissions package.
  This money doesn't just save lives in countries around the world when 
they suffer earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and natural disasters. 
It strengthens our standing, brings us closer to our allies, and helps 
us compete with China.
  Two months ago, I visited the Philippines on a bipartisan codel and 
was struck to learn it is the most disaster-prone country on Earth. 
Today, they are giving us access to nine new military sites. They are 
one of our strongest treaty partners in the region.
  And why? When I asked their leaders, they said because America helps 
respond to disasters.
  Mr. President, $496 million, 0.01 percent of the debt Republicans 
have just added to our Nation in the last 2 weeks, and this money is 
implemented by Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, and the World 
Food Programme.
  I ask my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
from Senator Coons that strikes the rescission for international 
disaster assistance, IDA. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Many foreign governments and U.N. agencies have become reliant on 
U.S. emergency funding, using it to avoid in investing in their own 
disaster preparedness.
  IDA is intended to aid in response to emergencies around the world. 
But, instead, it has gone to things like $3 million for sexual 
reproductive health in Venezuela; $2.1 for climate resilience in 
Southeast Asia, Latin America, and East Africa; and $2.4 million to 
make aid more considerate of sexual orientation and gender identity.
  IDA will still have unobligated funds--more than $6 billion--that the 
administration may use as they see fit.
  Mr. President, with that, I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
amendment No. 2856.

[[Page S4401]]

  



                       Vote on Amendment No. 2856

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. COONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 393 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 2856) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). The Senator from Nevada.


                  Motion to Recommit with Instructions

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Ms. Cortez Masto] moves to 
     recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the Senate with instructions.

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to recommit with instructions is as follows:
       Ms. Cortez Masto moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate with instructions 
     to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) would prohibit the rescission of funding for the 
     Corporation for Public Broadcasting if the cutting of funding 
     impacts any functions or capabilities in support of first 
     responders, law-enforcement or the broader public safety.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I am introducing a motion to 
recommit stating that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
rescission cannot advance if it impacts public safety.
  For years, public broadcasting has been essential to keeping 
Americans informed during severe weather and environment threats and 
broader public safety situations. Let me give you an example from my 
home State. As the Davis wildfire raged in Northern Nevada last summer, 
the local CBS affiliate lost their transmitter in the fire. But thanks 
to public broadcasting services, CBS was able to air their local 
newscast and keep Nevadans informed about evacuations, the path of the 
fire, and safety measures.
  Public broadcasting stations also work with law enforcement to get 
information out related to abducted children, missing seniors, and 
major acts of violence.
  Now is not the time to claw back funding that this body has already 
approved for public broadcasting's emergency alert system. I urge my 
colleagues who care about keeping America safe to support this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered from my colleague Senator Cortez Masto.
  Let's be clear about this. The funding rescinded in this package has 
zero--zero--impact on emergency alert systems. The Integrated Public 
Alert and Warning System, IPAWS, or Next Generation Warning System 
Grant Program are funded and operated by FEMA, not the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. Those alerts do not rely on CPB, and they 
certainly don't depend on taxpayer subsidies for partisan media 
outlets. Any entity could administer these programs without funneling 
money through a politically biased intermediary. If adopted, this 
motion would kill the bill by delaying its consideration by the July 
deadline and stand in the way of Republican efforts to eliminate 
wasteful spending and deliver on the President's agenda for the 
American people. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 394 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Gallego] moves to recommit 
     the bill H.R. 4 to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate with instructions to report back forthwith.

  Mr. GALLEGO. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion is as follows:
        Mr. Gallego moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate with instructions 
     to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) modify the proposed rescissions of funds for the 
     Corporation for Public Broadcasting to exclude amounts 
     designated to support public radio or television stations 
     that are licensed to or primarily serve rural areas or Tribal 
     communities.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, cutting funding for the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting would devastate local public media, especially 
rural and Tribal areas where CPB funds make up the majority of their 
budgets.
  In Arizona, stations like Whiteriver and Tuba City rely on CPB for 
about three-quarters of their funding. That is

[[Page S4402]]

especially important since nearly 80 percent of children in Arizona 
don't have access to formal preschool, meaning that for many families, 
public television is one of their only early childhood education tools. 
We shouldn't be pulling the rug out from under these children, 
especially from these communities that are desperately in need.
  At the same time Republicans are proposing these cuts, they are 
handing out tax breaks for billionaires and other corporations. They 
are sending a clear message that Tribal and rural communities matter 
less than the filthy rich that do not need more and more tax cuts. That 
is why I move to limit the damage of cutting funds for the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting and to protect stations in rural and Tribal 
communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Senator Gallego.
  The overwhelming majority of CPB's funding goes to NPR and PBS--
entities that have drifted far from their original mission and now 
serve as megaphones for partisan, leftwing activism. American taxpayers 
should not be forced to subsidize programming that glorifies radical 
gender ideology in schools or pushes to defund the police.
  Local stations are not without resources. They already receive 
revenue from individual donations, membership drives, corporate 
sponsorships, and private grants. On top of that, many States already 
invest in public broadcasting. It is entirely reasonable and, frankly, 
long overdue to expect they just shoulder more of the burden here.
  This amendment is not about protecting rural radio stations or 
television stations; it is about protecting a political agenda with 
taxpayer dollars.
  If adopted, this motion would kill the bill by delaying its 
consideration by the July 18 deadline and stand in the way of 
Republican efforts to eliminate wasteful spending and deliver on the 
President's agenda to the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  Mr. GALLEGO. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 395 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Ms. Hirono] moves to recommit the 
     bill H.R. 4 to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     with instructions.

  Ms. HIRONO. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to recommit with instructions is as follows:
       Ms. Hirono moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate with instructions 
     to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) would ensure that no recipient of funds from the 
     Corporation for Public Broadcasting that is designated as a 
     Primary Entry Point, National Primary, State Primary, State 
     Relay, State Relay Network, Local Primary, or Participating 
     National (as those terms are defined in section 11.18 of 
     title 47, Code of Federal Regulations) in the Emergency Alert 
     System would lose funding as a result of the rescissions in 
     the bill.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, public broadcasters are essential to rural 
communities, often serving as the only emergency alert system when 
disasters or emergencies occur. These alerts can mean the difference 
between life or death.
  Public broadcasters around the country, especially those in rural 
communities, rely on significant funding from the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, which is why Congress has consistently provided 
CPB funding on a bipartisan basis.
  By cutting funding from public broadcasting, this bill will 
jeopardize public broadcasters and the lifesaving service they provide. 
My motion to recommit will ensure that no public broadcasting station 
that participates in the emergency alert system would lose funding as a 
result of this bill.
  As natural disasters increase in frequency across our country, this 
motion will help protect our communities and ensure they can get 
timely, lifesaving information--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Ms. HIRONO. --when disasters strike. I urge my colleagues to vote yes 
on this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Hirono. Saying that 
defunding CPB will somehow prevent Americans from receiving emergency 
alerts is demonstrably not only fearmongering but not true.
  Emergency alerts, the kind you see on your cell phone and that air on 
TV and radio stations, are sent out via a system funded and operated by 
FEMA, called the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, or IPAWS. 
If we rescind CBP's annual funding, IPAWS will continue to operate as 
usual, sending emergency alerts to cell phones, public broadcasters, 
and commercial broadcasters alike. Simply put, we don't need to 
subsidize leftwing propaganda in order to keep Americans safe.
  If adopted, this motion will kill the bill by delaying its 
consideration by the July 18 deadline and stand in the way of 
Republican efforts to provide accountability and course-correct from 
wasteful spending and deliver on President Trump's agenda for the 
American people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Ms. HIRONO. This bill endangers the public.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Ms. HIRONO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 396 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly

[[Page S4403]]


     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. SCHMITT. 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, Warner, motion to recommit regarding 
Economic Support Fund; No. 2, Schumer, motion to recommit regarding 
countering China; No. 3, Schiff, amendment No. 2862; No. 4, Markey, 
motion to recommit regarding children's educational programs; and, No. 
5, Rosen amendment No. 2878.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.


                Amendment No. 2855 to Amendment No. 2853

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I call up the Baldwin, Murkowski, 
Cantwell amendment No. 2855 and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Ms. Baldwin], for herself, Ms. 
     Murkowski, and others, proposes an amendment numbered 2855 to 
     amendment No. 2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the rescissions of funding for the Corporation for 
                          Public Broadcasting)

        Strike section 2(b)(20).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, our amendment would strike the rescission 
for Public Broadcasting. Eliminating this funding would be devastating 
for local public radio and television stations. It would reduce or 
eliminate access to educational programming, local news, and lifesaving 
alerts during emergencies and natural disasters. It would 
disproportionately harm our rural and Tribal communities.
  If my colleagues have concerns about this funding, I commit to 
working with you on those concerns as part of the appropriations 
process. That is where we should have these debates. But these issues 
were not even raised as a part of our appropriations process during the 
past 2 years. So to take this extraordinary step and say that these 
issues are now so grave and so urgent that we have to address them like 
this, what are we doing here?
  If we don't adopt this amendment, local television and radio stations 
will shut down, and it will be rural stations that will be the first to 
close.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for our bipartisan amendment and to work 
with me on these issues as part of the appropriations process, where 
they should be dealt with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, public broadcasting has long been overtaken 
by partisan activists, plain and simple. This isn't just an abstract 
critique.
  NPR and PBS have revealed their leftwing bias time and time again. 
When blowing the whistle on NPR, Uri Berliner, a former senior editor--
himself a leftwing Democrat--wrote that ``NPR has always had a liberal 
bent. . . . An opened-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR . . . 
we don't have an audience that reflects America.
  Exhibit A: After the New York Post broke the Hunter Biden laptop 
story, NPR ran political cover for the Democrats, refusing to cover the 
story.

       We don't want to waste listeners' and readers' time on 
     stories that are just pure distractions.

  Mind you, the story was true; that is why they didn't want to cover 
it.
  As for PBS, its coverage of last year's DNC was only 12 percent 
negative; the RNC, a staggering 72 percent negative.
  If you want to watch leftwing propaganda, turn on MSNBC, but the 
taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2855

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the 
amendment.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 397 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 2855) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Virginia.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] moves to recommit 
     the bill H.R. 4 to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate with instructions.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to recommit with instructions is as follows:

       Mr. Warner moves to recommit H.R. 4 to the Committee on 
     Appropriations with instructions to report the same back to 
     the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the 
     Senate is not in session, with changes that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of the committee; and
       (2) would reduce the rescissions in the Economic Support 
     Fund and Development Assistance accounts for assistance for 
     countries in Africa, including to strengthen trade, counter 
     the malign influence of adversaries, and pursue economic 
     development.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today--I know many of us have--with 
deep concern about the administration shuttering USAID, firing 
thousands of State Department personnel, and retreating from America's 
place in the world. These actions threaten our national security and 
our economic interests.
  Africa has the world's fastest growing population, projected to be 
home for 25 percent of the global population by 2050 and has enormous 
reserves and strategic benefits.
  I can tell you, back in Virginia we benefit greatly from the vibrant 
and diverse African diaspora populations.

[[Page S4404]]

U.S. engagement with African nations is essential. It makes us safer 
and develops economic opportunities for partnership. This is in 
America's strategic interest.
  Our adversaries get this, too, and China has been jumping at the 
opportunity to make inroads as we retreat from Africa.
  This administration's haphazard retreat from our commitments in 
Africa make us all less safe. Rescinding these economic support and 
development funds is harmful today, but it is, in the long run, a clear 
and avoidable catastrophe, one that mortgages our strategic interests, 
our credibility, and our security.
  I urge my colleagues to support my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit offered by Senator Warner that would effectively kill this 
bill. Let me be clear, the funding we are rescinding in this package 
will have no bearing on the safety, security, or prosperity of the 
American people. So much of our money for too long has been misaligned 
with any idea of a core American interest. This bill seeks to rectify 
that.
  Rather, the economic support funding we are rescinding has been used 
to do things like support sedentary migrants in Colombia, hold a pride 
parade in foreign countries, to teach children how to make 
environmentally friendly reproductive health decisions overseas.
  It is long past time to recoup the funds for asinine programs like 
these and work to regain the trust of the American people once again. 
As I mentioned, if adopted, this motion would kill the bill by delaying 
its consideration until after the July 18 deadline and stand in the way 
of our efforts to eliminate waste and spending and deliver on President 
Trump's agenda for the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
recommit.
  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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 398 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Justice). The Democratic leader.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] moves to recommit 
     the bill H.R. 4 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to recommit with instructions is as follows:

        Mr. Schumer moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on 
     which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) would prevent the rescission of funds that--
       (A) support United States partners in the Indo-Pacific 
     region against aggression by the People's Republic of China;
       (B) counter the influence of the Russian Federation and the 
     People's Republic of China; and
       (C) support critical mineral supply chains, strategic 
     infrastructure, and cybersecurity initiatives to promote 
     economic resilience against aggression by the People's 
     Republic of China and the Russian Federation through the 
     Economic Resilience Initiative.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Donald Trump and Republicans always like 
to talk a big game when it comes to adversaries like the Chinese 
Government. But the bill they are pushing, which slashes vital foreign 
aid, would be a gift to President Xi and to Vladimir Putin.
  My amendment is simple. It stops Republicans from cutting funds to 
outcompete the Chinese Government, it helps us beat the Chinese 
Government in the race for precious critical minerals, and it fights 
back against the Chinese Government's cyber attacks and influence 
campaigns. It will also stop Republicans from defunding our partners in 
the Indo-Pacific, often the first line of defense against Chinese 
Government encroachment.
  You cannot support this rescissions package and be serious about 
wanting to outcompete the Chinese Government at every opportunity. 
Right now, for instance, the United States and the CCP are racing for 
access to critical minerals that power the most important technologies. 
U.S. development programs are critical for accessing these materials, 
but Senate Republicans want to ax these vital funds and, thereby, hand 
the keys over to Beijing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I say to my colleagues: Let's not hand over American 
leadership to the Chinese Communist Party just to pay for more tax 
breaks for billionaires.
  Vote yes on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Senator Schumer.
  We heard that refrain before the Big Beautiful Bill--the tired 
refrain about tax breaks for billionaires. The Democrats don't have 
anything left and are resorting to these sorts of amendments, which, by 
the way, are already covered in the substitute.
  Let's be clear, funding rescinded in this package has no bearing on 
the safety, security, and prosperity of the American people. It will 
only make us more focused on the threat of communist China.
  No more ridiculous spending. Let's get focused on our chief 
adversary, which is China. In fact, the substitute, as I mentioned, 
already protects the foreign aid fund for countering China's malign 
influence by protecting the Countering PRC Influence Fund.
  Contrary to my colleague's assertions, I suspect communist China 
loves to see America squander its resources on shoving radical leftwing 
social programs on societies around the globe.
  If adopted, this motion would kill the bill by delaying consideration 
until after July 18 and stand in the way of our efforts to return 
accountability and have this Chamber actually speak, as it should, that 
we are going to reduce wasteful spending, once and for all, and deliver 
on President Trump's important agenda for the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S4405]]

  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 399 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                Amendment No. 2862 to Amendment No. 2853

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2862 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mr. Schiff], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 2862 to amendment No. 
     2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To reduce the amount rescinded from Global Health programs to 
           preserve funding for programs addressing diseases)

       On page 3, line 14, strike ``$500,000,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``Malaria,'' and insert ``$66,000,000 are 
     rescinded: Provided, That none of the amounts rescinded under 
     this paragraph shall be from the unobligated balances for the 
     following programs: HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, Malaria, other 
     diseases,''.

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues have offered a 
substitute amendment that claims to prohibit cuts for programs dealing 
with HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, as well as nutrition and maternal 
health support, but the total amount of money they are rescinding is 
unchanged, putting all of those efforts at risk.
  If this sounds familiar, it is a lot like a reconciliation process 
that demands a trillion dollars in cuts but says that Medicaid should 
not be touched. And we know what happened there: Medicaid was cut 
massively.
  Several Republicans have pointed out that we don't know how the 
administration is going to implement this bill. That is a major 
problem.
  So let's make this as simple as possible. The Senate doesn't want to 
cut funding for AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases? Then 
let's remove those rescissions. My amendment would reduce the amount of 
cuts to global health programs in order to ensure that funding for HIV, 
tuberculosis, malaria, and maternal health and nutrition programs 
remain, not just in theory but in real dollars and cents.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
from Senator Schiff that reduces the global health rescission from $500 
million to $66 million to fence off unobligated balances for HIV/AIDS, 
tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases.
  We already do that in the substitute. What we are also doing in the 
substitute, though, I would point out, is targeting egregious waste 
like $7.4 million for a curriculum that teaches practitioners about 
environmental racism and DEI. Remember, that $7.4 million could have 
been used to save lives. By slashing the amount rescinded from the 
global health funding, we would be allowing this inexcusable use of 
taxpayer dollars to continue.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote no on amendment No. 2862.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2862

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the 
amendment.
  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.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 400 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Paul
     Smith
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 2862) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] moves to 
     recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the Senate with instructions.

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask that further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to recommit with instructions is as follows:

        Mr. Markey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate with instructions 
     to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) remove any rescissions that would reduce access to 
     children's educational programming through public television 
     stations.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, my motion would ensure that this 
Republican bill will not cut access to children's educational 
programming through public television stations. From 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
every single day, the public television system is the children's 
television network for free in our country. Hour after hour, public 
television delivers free, entertaining, educational programming for all 
children, all ages, Black, White, Latino, Asian, for free, regardless 
of race, regardless of income. And its ``Arthur,'' ``Molly of Denali,'' 
the ``Wild Kratts,'' ``Lyla in the Loop,'' ``Daniel Tiger's 
Neighborhood,'' on all day long.
  These Republican bill cuts will cause stations that deliver this 
essential children's programming to go dark. These cuts will be 
especially devastating to millions of children and families in rural 
and underserved and low-income communities that don't have access to a 
high-speed network. Defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
is a betrayal of all those kids.

[[Page S4406]]

  The Markey motion says--and I ask for an ``aye''--keep the children's 
television network on PBS on all day all across our country for free, 
for every child. That has educated generations of children in our 
country. Keep the children's television network on the air. Vote aye 
for the Markey motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to the amendment 
from Senator Markey. Saying that defunding the CPB will somehow prevent 
Americans from receiving children's educational programming is patently 
false. American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize programming 
that glorifies radical gender ideology at schools or encourages 
children to defund the police.
  As just one example, PBS programming has been used to help fund a 
children's learning segment promoting the book ``The Hips on the Drag 
Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish.'' This is not any sane person's 
definition of an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
  Eliminating this funding doesn't ban public stations from airing 
kids' programming; it just ends the Federal subsidy. Taxpayers across 
this country should not be funding that nonsense.
  This motion isn't about protecting children's education; it is about 
protecting a political agenda with taxpayer dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Ms. HASSAN. I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. 
Klobuchar) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 401 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Capito
     Klobuchar
     Smith
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Missouri.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. SCHMITT. 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, Senator Kaine, motion to recommit 
regarding faith-based organizations; No. 2, Senator Booker, amendment 
No. 2887.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                Amendment No. 2878 to Amendment No. 2853

  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2878, and I ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Ms. Rosen] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2878 to amendment No. 2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To strike the rescission of funds appropriated for Global 
  Health programs, including family planning and reproductive health)

       On page 3, strike lines 9 through 21.

  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of global 
health.
  Global health programs save lives; they grow economies; they create 
more stable societies. But this cruel bill eliminates $500 million in 
global health funding that would gut family planning programs. That 
means that 47 million women and couples could lose access to essential 
care around the globe and that tens of thousands of women will die as a 
result. When women have the right to decide when and how many children 
to have, they succeed; families succeed. This means we spend less, not 
more, in foreign assistance.
  My amendment makes sure women have the ability to make decisions 
about their own bodies, their lives, and their futures. We will all be 
better for it. I urge my colleagues to support the Rosen amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I object to the Senator's motion to 
strike the provision that protects taxpayer dollars from funding 
foreign abortion programs through the global health program. The 
American people agree with me, and I have got a poll right here: 73 
percent of Americans oppose or strongly oppose using their tax dollars 
to support abortion services in other countries.
  While the substitute amendment protects critical lifesaving 
initiatives in the global health account, including maternal and child 
healthcare, there is absolutely zero, nada, naught--no reason--that 
taxpayers should be funding abortion programs abroad. We are $37 
trillion in debt. The American people are demanding fiscal 
responsibility, and they do not want their hard-earned tax dollars 
funding a far-left agenda that violates their closely held beliefs, 
especially when it comes to protecting the dignity of human life.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2878

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  If my Republican colleagues were so worried about the debt, they 
wouldn't have added $3 trillion to the reconciliation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 402 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

[[Page S4407]]


  


                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 2878) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Kaine] moves to recommit the 
     bill H.R. 4 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions.

  Mr. KAINE. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to recommit is as follows:

       Mr. Kaine moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on 
     which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) would eliminate the rescission of Migration and Refugee 
     Assistance funds and International Disaster Assistance funds, 
     including such funds that support activities of faith-based 
     organizations or their local partners.

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, my motion would require the bill to come 
back with no cuts to faith-based organizations in the International 
Development account and the Migration and Refugee Assistance accounts. 
These two accounts, on the refugee side, provide service to lawful 
immigrants of the United States overwhelmingly by faith-based 
organizations in this country, and the development assistance is 
disaster relief by faith-based organizations.
  Whose funds are being cut by this? Catholic Relief Services--been 
doing this for 80 years; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; World Vision; 
World Relief Corporation of the Evangelical Association; Lutheran 
Social Services; Lutheran World Relief; the Episcopal Church; Bethany 
Christian Services; Jesuit Refugee Services; Samaritans First.
  This is a war on faith-based workers who are providing services in 
many instances for decades, even over a century. I would ask the 
support of my colleagues that we not cut faith-based organizations 
doing work in accordance with their faith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I do rise to be able to speak in 
opposition to this motion to recommit. It would kill the entire bill. I 
understand that is the intent of it, and I can appreciate that.
  The Senator from Virginia is my friend, and the list that he listed 
off of faith-based organizations I strongly support, and so does he.
  This particular section that is being reduced is being reduced about 
25 percent of the total amount. So I can speak with great confidence. 
This is not cutting off all those faith-based entities. What this is 
doing is adjusting for the dramatic shift that has happened on our 
southern border. Much of the refugee work that has been done has been 
assisting refugees moving through Central and South America and Mexico 
into the United States.
  A year and a half ago, we had a quarter million people a month that 
were illegally crossing our border, asking for asylum at our border. 
Now we have, many days, less than 200 even attempt. The need has 
dramatically dropped from what it was 18 months ago. This adjusts that 
account by 25 percent. It does not eliminate faith-based organizations.
  There are great needs around the world, and I am incredibly grateful 
to the faith-based organizations that do remarkable work that partner 
with our government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I just ask that you join with these 
organizations that support my motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 403 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                Amendment No. 2887 to Amendment No. 2853

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment No. 
2887 and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Booker] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2887 to amendment No. 2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To strike the rescission of funds appropriated for the Feed 
  the Future Program to improve global food security and agricultural 
resiliency and support agriculture research that benefits United States 
                    agribusinesses and universities)

        On page 5, line 19, strike ``$2,500,000,000 are rescinded: 
     Provided,'' and insert ``$1,714,200,000 are rescinded: 
     Provided, That of the funds that remain available under such 
     heading in such Act, not less than $785,800,000 shall be made 
     available for food security and agricultural development 
     programs pursuant to section 7060(d) of the Department of 
     State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 2024 (division F of Public Law 118-47): 
     Provided further,''.

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I have had the real pleasure, over the 
last 14 years, to work on some great bipartisan projects. Probably, my 
favorite is the Feed the Future Program.
  The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee says he is proud of 
the Feed the Future Program because it helps to save lives, promotes 
self-reliance, and opens up new trade opportunities.
  Numerous of my colleagues know this is one of the programs that does 
extraordinary things. For example, for every $1 the U.S. Government 
spends on Feed the Future, it unlocks $6 of private investment.
  The program has shown to expand and diversify export markets that are 
critical to farmers and agribusinesses, and these programs lessen the 
reliance on humanitarian aid and strengthen local communities.
  It is one of the most intelligent investments we do, and it deals 
with 735 million people around the world who are facing hunger.
  This program has wide bipartisan support in this body, and my 
amendment simply says that we will reduce the development assistance 
funding in this rescission by $785 million to restore this widely 
bipartisan-supported program.
  Mr. President, you are struggling to find that button.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Your time has expired.
  Mr. BOOKER. I know my time has expired, and I am grateful for the 
indulgence. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
from

[[Page S4408]]

my friend from New Jersey. This amendment reduces the rescission for 
development assistance, and then it earmarks a substantial portion of 
the remaining funds for poorly defined agriculture and food security 
programs.
  The rescissions package already protects essential food security 
programs, including the Feed the Future Innovation Labs and 
administration of the Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole Programs, 
all of which serve core American value interests.
  It also leaves billions in unobligated balances under the development 
assistance, under the economic support fund and international disaster 
assistance accounts--all available to support the types of agriculture-
led growth that make Americans safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
  But these aren't the programs my friend from New Jersey is trying to 
protect. Instead of enabling us to support our most effective programs, 
it would enable the ineffective ones that Democrats love to champion.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on amendment 2887.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, before I ask for the yeas and nays, I just 
want to say, despite what my colleague said, he is welcome to New 
Jersey anytime. I still love him.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2887

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of 
amendment No. 2887.
  Mr. BOOKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 404 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 2887) was rejected.
  (Mr. CURTIS assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The majority leader.
  Mr. THUNE. 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: Kelly, No. 2893; and Murkowski, No. 2865.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                Amendment No. 2893 to Amendment No. 2853

  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2893 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kelly], for Ms. Collins, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2893 to amendment No. 2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by Senate 
     amendment No. 2853, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rescissions Act of 2025''.

     SEC. 2. RESCISSIONS OF BUDGET AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Pursuant to the special message 
     transmitted by the President on June 3, 2025, to the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate proposing the rescission of 
     budget authority under section 1012 of part B of title X of 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 682 et seq.), the rescissions described under 
     subsection (b) shall take effect immediately upon the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Rescissions.--The rescissions described in this 
     subsection are as follows:
       (1) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``International Organizations--Contributions to International 
     Organizations'' made available by the Department of State, 
     Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     2024 (division F of Public Law 118-47), $33,008,764 are 
     permanently rescinded.
       (2) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``International Organizations--Contributions to International 
     Organizations'' made available by the Full-Year Continuing 
     Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of Public Law 119-4), 
     $88,483,000 are permanently rescinded, which shall not be 
     rescinded from the United States contributions to the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization and the NATO Parliamentary 
     Assembly if such rescissions would reduce such contributions 
     from funds made available in fiscal year 2025 below 
     $79,488,000 and $866,000, respectively (the levels designated 
     in the ``FY 2025 Estimate'' column in the ``Contributions to 
     International Organizations Updated Assessments Summary'' 
     table submitted to the Committees on Appropriations on May 
     15, 2025).
       (3) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``International Organizations--Contributions for 
     International Peacekeeping Activities'' made available by the 
     Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 2024 (division F of Public Law 118-47), 
     $203,328,007 are permanently rescinded.
       (4) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``International Organizations--Contributions for 
     International Peacekeeping Activities'' made available by the 
     Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of 
     Public Law 119-4), $157,906,000 are permanently rescinded.
       (5) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Department of State--Migration and Refugee Assistance'' 
     made available by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 
     Act, 2025 (division A of Public Law 119-4), $800,000,000 are 
     permanently rescinded.
       (6) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance--Funds Appropriated to the 
     President--Complex Crises Fund'' made available by the Full-
     Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of 
     Public Law 119-4), $43,000,000 are permanently rescinded.
       (7) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance--Funds Appropriated to the 
     President--Democracy Fund'' made available by the Full-Year 
     Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of Public Law 
     119-4), $83,000,000 are permanently rescinded from amounts 
     made available for the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, 
     and Governance, United States Agency for International 
     Development.
       (8) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance--Funds Appropriated to the 
     President--Economic Support Fund'' made available by the 
     Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of 
     Public Law 119-4), $1,650,000,000 are permanently rescinded, 
     which shall not be rescinded from assistance for Jordan, 
     Egypt, Burma, Countering PRC Influence Fund (CPIF), Near East 
     Regional Democracy, Agricultural Development/Food Security, 
     and Water programs if such rescission would reduce such 
     assistance from funds made available in fiscal year 2025 
     below $1,200,200,000, $125,000,000, $121,000,000, 
     $155,000,000, $55,000,000, $149,920,000, and $125,600,000, 
     respectively (the levels designated for Agricultural 
     Development/Food Security and Water for ESF in the ``FY 2024 
     653(a) Sector Summary'' table and for all of the other 
     assistance specifically referenced in this paragraph in the 
     ``FY 2024 653(a)'' column under the heading ``Economic 
     Support Fund'' in the fiscal year 2024 report required by 
     section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations on October 23, 
     2024 and October 30, 2024, respectively).
       (9) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Multilateral Assistance--International Financial 
     Institutions--Contribution to the Clean Technology Fund'' 
     made available by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 
     Act, 2025 (division A of Public Law 119-4), $125,000,000 are 
     permanently rescinded.
       (10) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Multilateral Assistance--Funds Appropriated to the 
     President--International Organizations and Programs'' made 
     available by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 
     2025 (division A of Public Law 119-4), $294,920,000 are 
     permanently rescinded, which shall not be rescinded from the 
     United States contribution to the United Nations Children's 
     Fund if such rescission would reduce such contribution from 
     funds made available in fiscal year 2025 below $142,000,000 
     (the level designated in the table

[[Page S4409]]

     titled ``International Organizations and Programs'' in the 
     explanatory statement accompanying the Department of State, 
     Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     2024 (division F of Public Law 118-47)).
       (11) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance--Funds Appropriated to the 
     President--Development Assistance'' made available by the 
     Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of 
     Public Law 119-4), $1,999,870,000 are permanently rescinded, 
     which shall not be rescinded from assistance for--
       (A) Countering PRC Influence Fund (CPIF) and the 
     Philippines if such rescissions would reduce such assistance 
     from funds made available in fiscal year 2025 below 
     $90,000,000 and $68,100,000, respectively (the levels 
     designated in the ``FY 2024 653(a)'' column under the heading 
     ``Development Assistance'' in the fiscal year 2024 report 
     required by section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and submitted to the Committees on Appropriations on 
     October 30, 2024); and
       (B) Feed the Future Innovation Labs, Agricultural 
     Development/Food Security, and Water programs if such 
     rescission would reduce such assistance from funds made 
     available in fiscal year 2025 below $72,000,000, 
     $785,800,000, and $270,030,000, respectively (the level 
     designated for Future Innovation Labs in the ``FY 2024 
     653(a)'' column of the ``FY 2024 653(a) Report Sub Account: 
     DA'' table and the levels designated for Agricultural 
     Development/Food Security and Water for DA in the ``FY 2024 
     653(a) Sector Summary'' table in the fiscal year 2024 report 
     required by section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and submitted to the Committees on Appropriations on 
     October 23, 2024).
       (12) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance--Funds Appropriated to the 
     President--Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia'' 
     made available by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 
     Act, 2025 (division A of Public Law 119-4), $260,000,000 are 
     permanently rescinded, which shall not be rescinded from 
     assistance for Ukraine if such rescission would reduce such 
     assistance from funds made available in fiscal year 2025 
     below $200,000,000 (the level designated in the ``FY 2024 
     653(a)'' column under the heading ``Assistance for Europe, 
     Eurasia and Central Asia'' in the fiscal year 2024 report 
     required by section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and submitted to the Committees on Appropriations on 
     October 30, 2024).
       (13) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance--Funds Appropriated to the 
     President--International Disaster Assistance'' made available 
     by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 
     (division A of Public Law 119-4), $496,000,000 are 
     permanently rescinded, which shall not be rescinded from 
     assistance for nutrition programs if such rescission would 
     reduce such assistance from funds made available in fiscal 
     year 2025 below $866,871,481 (the level designated in table 3 
     of the United States Agency for International Development's 
     report entitled ``Global Malnutrition Prevention and 
     Treatment Act Annual Report to Congress 2024'').
       (14) Of the unobligated balances under the heading ``United 
     States Agency for International Development--Funds 
     Appropriated to the President--Operating Expenses'' made 
     available by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 
     2025 (division A of Public Law 119-4), $125,000,000 are 
     permanently rescinded.
       (15) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance--Funds Appropriated to the 
     President--Transition Initiatives'' made available by the 
     Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of 
     Public Law 119-4), $57,000,000 are permanently rescinded.
       (16) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance--Independent Agencies--Inter-
     American Foundation'' made available by the Full-Year 
     Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of Public Law 
     119-4), $27,000,000 are permanently rescinded.
       (17) Of the unobligated balances under the heading 
     ``Bilateral Economic Assistance--Independent Agencies--United 
     States African Development Foundation'' made available by the 
     Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (division A of 
     Public Law 119-4), $22,000,000 are permanently rescinded.
       (18)(A) From amounts made available for ``Corporation for 
     Public Broadcasting'' for fiscal year 2026 by Public Law 118-
     47, $35,710,000 are hereby permanently rescinded, of which 
     $8,330,000 shall only be from amounts that would be made 
     available pursuant to the allocation in section 
     396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(II) of the Communications Act of 1934 and 
     $27,380,000 shall only be from amounts that would be made 
     available pursuant to the allocation in section 
     396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III) of the Communications Act of 1934.
       (B) From amounts made available for ``Corporation for 
     Public Broadcasting'' for fiscal year 2027 by Public Law 119-
     4, $35,710,000 are hereby permanently rescinded, of which 
     $8,330,000 shall only be from amounts that would be made 
     available pursuant to the allocation in section 
     396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(II) of the Communications Act of 1934 and 
     $27,380,000 shall only be from amounts that would be made 
     available pursuant to the allocation in section 
     396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III) of the Communications Act of 1934.
  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, this whole thing is a bad deal for the 
American people. It is a gut punch to rural communities and makes us 
weaker and less safe on the world stage.
  This amendment, though, dials back the worst of some of these cuts, 
especially for public broadcasting that is so important to so many 
Americans.
  Now, this amendment was drafted by Senator Collins, and I understand 
she isn't planning to offer it. But I think it is worth seeing if a 
bipartisan majority of us can come together to support it. And this is 
a good amendment and it will protect important elements of our public 
broadcast funding and it will preserve the vital funding for Ukraine, 
NATO, and other items that have bipartisan support that otherwise would 
be cut in the Republican rescissions package.
  Now, let's be clear, Senate Democrats oppose this rescissions 
package. But we are giving our colleagues yet another opportunity to 
make it less harmful as they claim they were willing to do. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I don't know if it is without precedence, 
but it is certainly unusual when the author of the amendment decides 
not to offer the amendment and somebody else will take that amendment 
and offer it. So I would move to table this amendment.


                             Vote on Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. 
Gillibrand), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 405 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gillibrand
     Smith
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the final amendments in order; that the 
amendments be reported by number; that following disposition of the 
amendments, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time, and 
the Senate vote on passage of Calendar No. 114, H.R. 4, as amended, if 
amended, with no intervening action or debate; and finally, that if 
passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table: No. 1, Shaheen amendment No. 2898; No. 2, Ossoff amendment No. 
2896; No. 3, Merkley amendment No. 2863; No. 4, Kim motion to recommit; 
No. 5, Lujan motion to recommit; and, No. 6, Schmitt amendment No. 
2853, the substitute.
  Mr. President, I also ask for unanimous consent that all remaining 
votes be 10 minutes in length.

[[Page S4410]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHMITT. I would ask that Senators please stay in their seats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Alaska.


                Amendment No. 2865 to Amendment No. 2853

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I call up my amendment No. 2865.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2865 to amendment No. 2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

        In section 2(b), strike paragraph (20) and insert the 
     following:
       (20)(A) From amounts made available for ``Corporation for 
     Public Broadcasting'' for fiscal year 2026 by Public Law 118-
     47, $8,330,000 are hereby permanently rescinded from amounts 
     that would be made available pursuant to the allocation in 
     section 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(II) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(II)).
       (B) From amounts made available for ``Corporation for 
     Public Broadcasting'' for fiscal year 2027 by Public Law 119-
     4, $8,330,000 are hereby permanently rescinded from amounts 
     that would be made available pursuant to the allocation in 
     section 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(II) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(II)).

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have a news alert. This afternoon, we 
had a 7.3 earthquake off of the coast of Alaska. Pretty big.
  We got the alert from KUCB staff members who felt this earthquake out 
there in Alaska. They contacted the emergency responders. It was an 
all-hands-on-deck. I am looking at a text I received from the station 
manager there at KUCB: Three staff members worked at sea level in our 
studio to get emergency messages on the air in coordination with local 
public safety officials. A fourth employee worked remotely to update 
the web and social media. When the tsunami sirens started to glare, the 
voice message in the warning instructed community members to tune into 
the local radio. We provided up-to-date information throughout the 
entire evacuation and all-clear procedures.
  So the good news is, tsunami is all clear. They say this is the work 
we do to keep Alaska safe, and it is only possible with Federal 
funding.
  Mr. President, I have an amendment that protects public media, their 
independence, their ability to provide local news, weather reports, 
and, yes, emergency alerts. What we do in this amendment is we tweak 
the rescission for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to protect 
public broadcasting while removing the pot of money that can go 
directly to NPR.
  We are reminded today that this stuff matters. I would hope my 
colleagues would recognize what is at stake and vote for my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in objection to the amendment from 
my colleague from Alaska.
  As was mentioned earlier on several of these other Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting amendments, this rescission does nothing to affect 
FEMA, which actually does the emergency response system.
  Our hearts--and I know this is a scary situation in Alaska. The good 
news is FEMA has money for these sorts of alerts.
  We have come a long way tonight. We are almost there. Our efforts to 
finally prevent Federal funding for the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting--this is maybe one of the last votes for that. What is 
important to note here is this would gut that aspect of it. And 93 
percent of the work that we are trying to do would be eliminated here. 
This would effectively fully fund the Corporation of Public 
Broadcasting to the tune of 93 percent of what we are currently trying 
to rescind. This is a very important vote. I would ask my colleagues to 
vote no.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2865

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. 
Gillibrand) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 406 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gillibrand
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 2865) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                Amendment No. 2898 to Amendment No. 2853

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2898, and I 
ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. shaheen] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2898 to amendment No. 2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reduce the amount rescinded from Assistance for Europe, 
                       Eurasia and Central Asia)

       In section 2(b)(13), strike ``460,000,000 are rescinded'' 
     and insert ``$260,000,000 are rescinded, which shall not be 
     rescinded from assistance for Ukraine if such rescissions 
     would reduce such assistance from funds made available in 
     fiscal year 2025 below $200,000,000 (the level designated in 
     the `FY 2024 653(a)' column under the heading `Assistance for 
     Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia' in the fiscal year 2024 
     report required by section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 and submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     on October 30, 2024)''.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise to propose an amendment to strike 
the rescission of funds to Ukraine.
  With Russian attacks intensifying against Ukraine, now is not the 
time to cut funds that have rebuilt Ukraine's energy grid, sustained 
Ukraine's ability to export agricultural goods, and supported efforts 
to keep the Ukrainian Government accountable to its anti-corruption 
commitments and reform efforts.
  Given the President's support for increasing weapons to Ukraine and 
for trying to put pressure on Russia, this is an important amendment 
because it would preserve that assistance to Ukraine, keeping its 
energy grid online, preventing the collapse of its economy, and 
preserving Ukraine's Western economic orientation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We do not want the 
Ukrainian army and their technological know-how in the orbit of Russia. 
We want it in Europe and the United States.
  This amendment also has the support of Senators Murkowski and Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, No. 1, I want to applaud Senator Shaheen 
for all she has done for Ukraine. And, quite frankly, to all of my 
Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues, I think we are trying 
to do right by Ukraine.
  So what is right by Ukraine?
  We have given well over $100 billion in aid and military assistance. 
And what are we trying to do here? We are not rescinding the $4 billion 
that is

[[Page S4411]]

available for military support, drawdown authority. We are not 
rescinding the $300 million that is still available. We are not 
rescinding the $14.4 billion loan authority available to Ukraine.
  What we are doing is rescinding an account of $460 million that has a 
bunch of things in it, including $300,000 for promoting tourism in the 
Caucasus; $832,000 to fund social media mentorship in Serbia and 
Belarus; and $5 million for green transportation and logistics.
  I want to help Ukraine, and the best thing we can do to help Ukraine 
right now is what President Trump is doing. Having the Europeans buy 
our weapons to give to Ukraine, I think, is good for the American 
economy, the American taxpayer, and for the Ukrainian military.
  But the best thing we could do is what we are doing, and I want to 
applaud everybody who has joined in with Senator Blumenthal and myself. 
It is to break China, India, and Brazil from buying Russian oil to prop 
up Putin's war machine.
  If you want to help Ukraine, crush Putin's customers who buy his oil 
and gas. There are 85 of us who have come together and said to Russia, 
China, and Brazil--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM. --if you keep buying his cheap oil, which is blood money, 
we are going to crush your economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is the best way to help Ukraine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2898

  The question now is on adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 407 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 2898) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                Amendment No. 2896 to Amendment No. 2853

  Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2853 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Ossoff], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 2896 to amendment No. 
     2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To reduce the amount rescinded from International 
 Organizations and Programs and to ensure that UNICEF receives all of 
         the funding previously appropriated to it by Congress)

       On page 5, lines 12 and 13, strike ``$436,920,000 are 
     permanently rescinded.''and insert ``$294,920,000 are 
     rescinded. The full amount of unobligated balances for the 
     United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) shall be 
     obligated in accordance with the applicable provisions of 
     Public Law 118-47 and Public Law 119-4.''.

  Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, many of us in the Senate are parents or 
grandparents of young children.
  This is Abdullah. He was a 1-year-old, starving in a war zone in 
Yemen until his life was saved by emergency rations sent by the 
American people through UNICEF.
  This bill ends the entire direct American contribution to UNICEF. Are 
we so calloused by politics that we would make this grievous and 
avoidable error, moral error? Do we believe it is the will of our 
constituents that children like Abdullah should die?
  We are U.S. Senators with the power through this vote to save 
children's lives and to spare their parents the heartbreak of a small 
child's death. Vote aye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
from Senator Ossoff.
  UNICEF's mission, although admirable, is not immune from waste, 
fraud, and abuse. That is why this rescission package includes $142 
million for UNICEF's overhead.
  The truth of the matter is, there is still significant funds for 
lifesaving care for kids, even after this rescission package is 
adopted. And my substitute amendment protects maternal and child health 
in the Global Health account.
  With that, I urge the body to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2896

  The question is on adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. OSSOFF. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 408 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 2896) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                Amendment No. 2863 to Amendment No. 2853

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2863 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2863 to amendment No. 2853.

  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S4412]]

  


(Purpose: To strike the paragraph of the bill that rescinds $15,000,000 
  that had been appropriated for the United States Institute of Peace)

       Beginning on page 7, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through page 8, line 2.

  Mr. MERKLEY. Colleagues, a bipartisan story: In 1984, four Senators 
came together to reduce the risk of war. All four were veterans of 
World War II: two Republicans--Mark Hatfield, a Navy lieutenant, and 
Ted Stevens, Army Air Corps pilot; and two Democrats--John Glenn, a 
Navy fighter pilot, and Sparky Matsunaga with the 100th Infantry 
Battalion.
  They knew the horror of war, and they resolved to ensure that 
conflict resolution and diplomacy would always be tools available to 
reduce the risk of war; to resolve world challenges; to reduce the risk 
of American servicemen and servicewomen dying in such wars. So they 
created the U.S. Institute of Peace. It was signed into law by 
President Reagan.
  Marine Major General Zinni testified to the effectiveness--often 
unseen, often behind the scenes--of their work in Asia, in the Balkans, 
in Africa, and in the Middle East.
  Tonight, let's channel that bipartisan support for reducing the risk 
of war, saving the lives of our service men and women, and sustain 
funding for the Institute of Peace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Senator Merkley.
  The Trump administration has been very clear and has directed that 
the nonstatutory components and functions of the U.S. Institute of 
Peace shall be eliminated to remain consistent with applicable law.
  The Institute of Peace, although it has a great sounding name, has 
violated this order and gone well beyond their statutory authority on a 
number of fronts--and I will just mention one of them--including 
funding projects at the University of Denver for escaping the ethnic 
trap of deeply divided societies. The list could go on and on. We don't 
have the time to do it.
  But this Agency has exceeded its mandate and has become nothing 
more--at this point or in many ways--than a think tank that peddles 
radical left ideology, violated the trust of the American people.
  Part of our charge tonight is to help restore that trust. And with 
that charge in mind, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2863

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 409 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 2863) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mullin). The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Kim] moves to recommit the 
     bill H.R. 4 to the Committee on Appropriations with 
     instructions.

  Mr. KIM. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to recommit with instructions is as follows:

        Mr. Kim moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate with instructions to report 
     the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day 
     on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) remove any rescissions that may reduce access to 
     programming related to veterans through public radio and 
     television stations.

  Mr. KIM. Mr. President, public broadcasting has educated and informed 
and inspired generations, teaching important lessons to people of all 
ages and sharing powerful stories, including of our Nation's veterans.
  One story at a time--the StoryCorps Military Voices Initiative 
uplifts the humanity and possibility in all of us. Each week on NPR, 
they share stories to over 12 million listeners.
  Then there is the PBS program ``Veterans Coming Home'' focused on 
sharing the experiences of veterans as they enter civilian life.
  The American Homefront Project breaks down challenges facing our 
troops, making sure we have conversations about what support military 
personnel and veterans need from all of us.
  The stories of our heroes aren't partisan; they aren't political. 
These are trusted, nonpartisan, powerful initiatives sharing the real 
experiences of our veterans, their families, and our communities, and 
reminding the rest of us of the price of freedom.
  Yet this rescission package before us threatens to eliminate over $1 
billion in funding for public broadcasting, including these programs.
  That is why I move to recommit this bill and bring it back without 
these senseless cuts. We can't let veterans' stories--the voices of 
those who have sacrificed for our country--be erased.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion that 
has been made by Senator Kim.
  Two quick points. The first is, if this were to actually somehow 
pass, it would kill the bill because it would go beyond the July 18 
deadline. Secondly, saying that defunding the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting can somehow prevent Americans from receiving veterans' 
educational programming is patently false.
  Eliminating CBP doesn't do that. It doesn't ban public stations from 
airing this kind of program. Of course they can. But what is true is 
that American taxpayers are tired of having to subsidize radical 
leftist programming they hear every single day and every single week of 
every single month or watch every single day or every single week of 
every single month on NPR or PBS.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I will accept a voice vote.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Lujan] moves to recommit 
     the bill H.R. 4 to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate with instructions.

  Mr. LUJAN. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to recommit with instructions is as follows:


[[Page S4413]]


  

       Mr. Lujan moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate with instructions 
     to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) remove any rescissions that may undermine the public 
     broadcasting infrastructure that supports communities' access 
     to the Emergency Alert System and life-saving weather alerts.

  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, my motion is simple: Public broadcasting 
infrastructure funding should not be rescinded if it limits access to 
emergency alert systems and lifesaving weather updates.
  Just last week, devastating floods across New Mexico claimed the 
lives of three people, including two children. Local radio was on the 
air issuing real-time warnings and helping people get to safety.
  Despite these horrible tragedies in New Mexico, Texas, and the 
Northeast, my Republican colleagues are prepared to gut public 
broadcasting funding.
  Public radio stations and local media are lifelines, especially in 
rural and Tribal communities. They don't just play music or share 
stories; they deliver emergency alerts and evacuation notices and 
lifesaving updates when disaster strikes.
  It is not just weather. These systems broadcast AMBER Alerts when 
children go missing--alerts where every second counts. Delays costs 
lives.
  Whether it is a flood, a fire, or a missing child, communities rely 
on these alerts to stay safe. Without funding and infrastructure, 
stations will collapse.
  One New Mexico broadcaster put it plainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, if you give me a little more time, I will 
offer a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, a New Mexico broadcaster put it plainly:

       Without sustained Federal investment, Tribal stations will 
     be devastated and likely forced off. . . .

  I urge my colleagues to vote yea, and I ask for a voice vote.


                       Vote on Motion to Recommit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment reflects what Senate 
Republicans landed on after a long discussion 2 days ago, zeroing out 
every penny of Federal support for local radio and TV stations our 
constituents rely on, ripping away investments in emergency alerts, 
gutting lifesaving aid, and making steep cuts to foreign policy 
investments we have made on a bipartisan basis.
  You might ask: What are those cuts? And even some of my Republican 
colleagues have said: We don't know because this administration will 
not tell us. So while this amendment makes one small trim, it seeks to 
protect just a handful of priorities without actually reducing any of 
the overall cuts.
  The reality is, Republicans are planning to rubberstamp President 
Trump's request.
  It is our communities, our reputation, our interest around the globe 
that will suffer the consequences. I will be voting no on this 
amendment and on final passage. I encourage my colleagues to do the 
same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, we are on the precipice in this Chamber 
right now to do something that is rarely done in this town, which is to 
identify waste, fraud, and abuse and actually do something about it.
  This is a rare thing. It is an important thing. It is about the $9 
billion we are going to save or $90 billion in the 10-year window. And 
where I come from, that is still a lot of money. That is a lot of 
money. But it is more than just that. It is about restoring trust with 
the American people.
  When the American people see dollars going to DEI trainings in Burma 
or sex changes in Guatemala, they wonder what in the world is going on 
around here.
  Tonight, we can say: We hear you; we know why you sent us here; and 
we are going to do something about it.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2853

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. SCHMITT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 410 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 2853), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this is a dark day for America, a dark 
day for rural Americans, a dark day for any American who relies on 
public broadcasting during floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other 
disasters, and this is also a dark day for this Chamber. Everyone here 
knows this is not how the Senate should function.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority Leader.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Schmitt for doing 
an exceptional job of managing this.
  (Applause.)
  Mr. THUNE. And also simply point out that our country is $36 trillion 
in debt. We can't keep doing the things the way--$36 trillion in debt. 
We can't keep doing things the way we have been doing them.
  Ladies and gentlemen, what we are talking about here is one-tenth of 
1 percent of all Federal spending--one-tenth of 1 percent of all 
Federal spending. But it is a step in the right direction, and it is 
the first time we have done anything like this in 35 years.
  So I hope our colleagues will vote yes and support this legislation 
that is going to start moving us in a different direction, that gets us 
on a more fiscally sustainable path for the future of our country.
  (Applause.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill for 
the third time.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.


                       Vote on H.R. 4, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.

[[Page S4414]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Smith) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 411 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The bill (H.R. 4), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________