Expressing unwavering support for the United States-Japan alliance in response to political, economic, and military pressure by the People's Republic of China against Japan.

Mr. President, we are going to vote here real soon on a bill that has been worked on for many, many months. I want to start by thanking the staff on the committees, the relevant committees, the floor staff--everybody who has been around who has to put in the hours and get us to where we are today. They are extraordinary people who are very dedicated to their jobs and the public service, and we are grateful for that.

I will say, too, we went through the reading of the bill--which the Democratic leader just pointed out was important for people to hear-- through the middle of the night. I don't think there was a big American audience for that. I think a lot of people were at their jobs, working their shifts--people like nurses and firefighters who are going to benefit under this bill. To think that they were sitting there in their jobs watching the bill be read on the floor for endless hours in the middle of the night--I am not sure what that achieved; but I will tell you what the Senator said, the Democrat leader, back in 2021, when a Republican Senator required that to be done. He said this:

It will accomplish little more than a few sore throats for

the Senate clerks who work very hard day in, day out to help

the Senate function.

Those clerks are here today. And one of the reasons that we tried to give them a break last night is because they had to stay here the night before to read through the bill. In the dead of the night, nobody watching, but they did it. So, hopefully, they got a little bit of rest last night so we can start this off.

Mr. President, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was one of the most successful economic policy pieces of legislation in history, and the data bears it out. Look at what happened. After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed, unemployment hit a 50-year low, poverty levels at record- level lows, and incomes grew. Incomes and wages increased most among lower income Americans. We started to narrow the wage gap as a result of the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

So what is this about? This is about extending that tax relief so the same people who benefited from it back in 2017 and for the last 8 years don't end up having a colossal, massive tax increase hitting them in the face come January 1.

Now, who are those people? It is people, it is families making less than $400,000 a year on whom the bulk of this would fall; $2.6 trillion of this tax hike that they are supporting would hit families making less than $400,000 a year.

It would hit small businesses to the tune of $600 billion in tax increases. These are passthrough businesses, the businesses that are out there creating the jobs every day. If we don't do this, they are going to face a $600 billion tax increase. That is what we are talking about.

If you want to put it in plain terms, if you are one of those families making less than $400,000 a year, the child tax credit would be cut in half, the standard deduction would be cut in half, and you wouldn't get the benefit that many taxpayers are going to get under the legislation that we are going to be debating today, which would allow tips to go untaxed, allow overtime to go untaxed. Those nurses, those firefighters who are working the long shifts, not watching the bill be read here on the Senate floor, actually get something out of this that makes their families more able to cope with the challenges that they face every day. So the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was a massive--by any stretch of the imagination--success.

There is probably no better evidence of that than the fact that the Congressional Budget Office, which has been quoted a lot here in the last few hours, actually underestimated the amount of revenue that would come into the Federal Government by $1.5 trillion, underestimated the amount of growth in the economy by 5.4 percent--dramatically underestimated what it would generate in terms of revenue and what it would generate in terms of growth. So let's just say what this is.

And, by the way, billionaires next year will pay the same tax rate they are paying this year. The people who are going to get hit with a tax increase if we don't do something are those families making less than $400,000 a year, who are going to see their child tax credit cut in half, their standard deduction cut in half, and their rates go back up to what they were in 2017. In my State of South Dakota, the average family is going to pay $2,500 more if we don't do something to extend the tax relief that was passed in 2017.

The other thing that the Democrat leader got up and talked about is: Oh, they are going to be cutting Medicaid. There are a lot of government programs that haven't been looked at in a long time. We all acknowledge that 75 percent now of Federal spending is what we call mandatory spending, entitlement programs, things that Congress doesn't annually appropriate for. And it continues to grow at an uncontrollable rate.

In fact, the growth and the rate of Medicaid spending in the last 5 years has been 50 percent. That is not sustainable. We know that is not sustainable.

In the time I have been here, we have never, ever done anything to reform and improve and strengthen these programs that are growing at an unsustainable rate that will wreck our economy and wreck our country if we don't start making some changes.

So, yes, there are some improvements and reforms to Medicaid to make it more efficient, to make sure that the people who are supposed to benefit from Medicaid do, and that it doesn't go to people who shouldn't benefit from Medicaid.

Now, most of the increase in spending in Medicaid has been at what we call the expansion population, and that is the number of people out there for whom States get a 90-percent reimbursement from the Federal Government. So that has grown dramatically.

And what does that represent? It is a lot of able-bodied adults-- people who should be working, people who, perhaps, don't need to be getting the assistance that is designed for people who are disabled, and the low-income, the elderly, and pregnant moms. That is what Medicaid was about.

States have, with the Federal Government, a partnership, shared for the years at a traditional rate. The expansion population is 90 percent, paid for by the Federal taxpayers. So what do States do? They game the system to get more Federal money. They add more people to the rolls. So you have people on the rolls today who are here illegally and people on the rolls here today who are not eligible for this program, and you have people here today in that program for whom there is no work requirement. So what this does is it makes some reforms, one of which--one of which--includes work requirements.

I don't think that is a novel concept. It certainly isn't a concept that I think most Americans would disagree with.

In fact, it was a Democrat President. Back in the 1990s, there was something called welfare reform. Bill Clinton, a Democrat President, proposed work requirements for welfare recipients.

And do you want to know something? The work requirements in the Welfare Reform Act passed back in 1996 and signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton had stronger work requirements than are included in this bill--stronger work requirements in a bill passed, signed into law by a Democrat President than what is in this bill, and proposed, I might add, by a Democrat President.

So that is one of the reforms that we are making. These are the reforms that are going to make this program stronger, more effective, more efficient, improve it in a way that it gets the assistance to the people for whom it was intended and not to people who are gaming the system.

And, yes, we address the issue of provider taxes, which has been abused--no question about it. It is another way to leverage Federal money, get more Federal money into the State coffers. And the States have used it for things not just to cover people but also for other reasons; and you have States like New York and California who gamed the system.

The whole issue of what we are doing with the Medicaid Program is to get rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse and make it work in the way in which it was intended, to cover the people for whom it was intended, and to make sure that we have work requirements included in there.

To the current policy baseline--everybody got up last night, and they were clamoring and yelling--very animated speeches--about how the Republicans are using the current policy baseline--how could they ever do that?

Well, do you know what? Back in 2012, President Obama and one of the people who was working for him at the time named Jeff Zients used the current policy baseline to make permanent the Bush tax cuts. And the way he described it--Jeff Zients described it at the time--he called it the alternative fiscal scenario. That is how they explained it to the American people. Then he translated it and said: What it is, it is a current policy baseline.

So the Democrats have used this before. In fact, they kind of--you can argue--pioneered it. But current policy baseline is something that has been used by both sides. So spare me the hypocrisy and the noise about current policy baseline. Alternative fiscal scenario, he called it, and then he went on to explain current policy baseline.

Finally, with regard to the issue of the deficits. It is rich to hear Democrats all of a sudden concerned about debt and deficits. Really? I mean, I have been here a long time, and I have not been involved in a single spending debate and fight in which Republicans were trying to spend less and Democrats were trying to spend more, with one exception--with one exception--and that is national security. Democrats are always willing to cut defense but never want to cut anywhere else. That is my experience.

And I think it was borne out a couple of years ago when Democrats had then but we have now, which is unified control of the government--the House, Senate, and White House. So they had an opportunity to use reconciliation, which they did twice. One of the bills cost $2 trillion; the other bill cost $1 trillion. And it was all spending. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the fundamental difference between us here, and I understand that. We have different views about the role of government. Democrats like government, and one of the things we know about government is when you send money to Washington--money is power, and when you send money to Washington from the American taxpayers, that means Washington has more power; it has more control. And Republicans fundamentally have believed that it is better if you allow the American people to keep their own money, that you distribute power out of Washington, DC, back to State and local governments, which are closer to the people and can make better decisions that are more informed by what is actually happening in their individual States.

So when we use reconciliation to keep taxes low--and, by the way, that is all we are doing here, is extending current tax policy. We are preventing over a $4 trillion tax increase on the American people. And when you vote against us, that is what you would be voting for.

Now, a good example of this spending issue was the 2011 Budget Control Act in which--authored by a number of people, including Senator McConnell--that created a supercommittee equally represented on both sides of the aisle. And they met for a long time trying to come up with some ways that we could come up with, ways to reform the entitlement programs. And, of course, what happened is they deadlocked because every Democrat voted against it and every Republican voted for it. It even included some revenue increases, which is something Democrats are always for.

So getting up and talking about deficits all of a sudden, honestly, is kind of mind-blowing coming from this side of the aisle. What we are doing here is extending existing tax policy, using a current policy baseline which was used by the Democrats, President Obama, Jeff Zients, no less than a little more than 10 years ago.

It is time to vote, and Democrats are going to get a chance to offer all of their amendments, and they will attack this thing as cutting taxes for billionaires. What we are doing here is extending tax relief for the American people, keeping their rates low, making sure they don't have their child tax

credit cut in half, their standard deduction cut in half, including new provisions that provide more relief for working Americans, which is what President Trump campaigned on. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, lower taxes for seniors, for Social Security recipients--these are all targeted at working Americans, working families. That is, first and foremost, what this is about.

This will make this country safer, stronger, and more prosperous. It addresses military modernization. It addresses securing our border. It addresses security dominance. It extends tax relief for the American people so they can avoid a $4 trillion tax increase at the end of the year. And, yes, it includes some savings associated with reforms that are made in a way that targets assistance from Federal programs to where it was intended to go. And, yes, we have work requirements--work requirements that were initiated by Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration during welfare reform back in the 1990s; only, I would say again, they are not as strong.

The work requirements included in that legislation back in the 1990s--what we have in this bill, the work requirements here are not as strong.

Mr. President, let's vote. This is good for America. This is good for the American people. It is good for working families.

It has been a long debate. I know people are weary, but at the end of the day, we want to get this done so that this country is safer and stronger and more prosperous, not only for today but for future generations of Americans.

Order of Business

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to all rollcall votes in relation to Calendar No. 107, H.R. 1.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Schumer motion, No. 1, motion to commit on healthcare costs, Markey motion, and then the Klobuchar point of order.

Mr. President, I make a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(b) of the Congressional Budget Act against title VII of substitute amendment No. 2360.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Wyden, motion to commit; Coons, motion to commit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senator to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Blunt Rochester--motion to commit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Cornyn No. 2705, Merkley No. 2446.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Murray, No. 2771.

I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to the vote in relation to the amendment or motion: Blackburn, No. 2401.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Kaine, motion to commit; Blumenthal, motion to commit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions: Van Hollen, No. 2584; Gallego, motion to commit; Hassan, motion to commit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions, or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions and with 12 minutes of debate equally divided on the Kennedy amendment No. 2772 between Senators Kennedy, Welch, and Scott of South Carolina: Duckworth, motion to commit; Schiff, motion to commit; Kennedy, No. 2772; Alsobrooks, motion to commit; Kelly, motion to commit; Murphy, motion to commit; King, motion to commit; Padilla, motion to commit; Bennet, motion to commit; and Collins, No. 2812.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2775 on behalf of Senator Kennedy and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following Senators to be recognized to offer amendments, motions or points of order; that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendments or motions.

Wyden, motion to commit; Hirono, No. 2382; Warnock, motion to commit; Lee, No. 2745; Kim, No. 2817; Ernst, No. 2372; Sanders, No. 2435, with 60 affirmative votes required.

Mr. President, I would suggest to my colleagues that we get this vote started and that, when we get it, we are going to start voting in our seats, and we are going to start doing 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, today, Senate Republicans have to decide: choose the American people or bow down to Donald Trump and his coterie of billionaires because this bill, as we have said for months, steals people's healthcare, jacks up their electricity bills, takes away their jobs--all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.

All month, Senate Democrats have put this bill on trial in the court of public opinion. We have exposed how it steals Medicaid for more than 16 million Americans. We have exposed how it takes away food benefits from millions of hungry kids. We have exposed how this bill increases the debt by $3.5 trillion to bankroll billionaire tax breaks. We have shown how this bill increases the debt $1 trillion more than the House bill. We have shown how this bill cuts Medicaid even more than the House bill. We have shown how this bill kills climate jobs even more than the House bill.

With every rewrite, Senate Republicans have made their bill more extreme, pro-billionaire, and more hostile to people's healthcare and livelihoods. Why do they do that? There is a small group on that side of the aisle--the MAGA hard-rightwingers--who is dictating what has happened, and all the rest of the Senators on the Republican side, who know it is wrong, go along. It is a small group. They don't represent more than 10 percent of the American people, but they are dictating what this body does, A, because of the rules we have--a simple majority--but, B, because our colleagues on the Republican side lack the courage of their convictions to do the right thing for the American people.

It is outrageous cutting people's healthcare, causing people to get sicker and to even die; cutting people's healthcare so that it is certain, almost, that more people will die--just to give tax breaks to billionaires. It is so destructive for Republicans to pass a bill like this at a time when people pay more for groceries, when people pay more for rent, pay more for childcare, pay more for medication. It makes no sense to reward the billionaire class and special interests at the expense of everyone else.

Look, there is nothing wrong with being wealthy, but they don't need another tax break, and they certainly shouldn't get a tax break by taking food from the mouths of hungry children--how outrageous, how cruel, how mean, how heartless, how uncaring--all to help the billionaires, whom they are enthralled to.

No surprise about it, many Republicans themselves don't seem all happy about the bill in front of them. We heard what our colleague from North Carolina had to say about this bill. My guess is about half-- maybe even more than half--of the Republicans in the Senate totally agree with him, but he had the courage to speak the truth--the backbone to speak the truth--but not our other colleagues. Senator Tillis spoke candidly. He was one of

the few truth-tellers on the other side as the bill devastates his State.

But make no mistake about it, it will devastate the States of most every Republican here. Week after week, month after month, year after year, when this bill passes, the destructive treatise will be all over their States, with people losing jobs, with people's costs going up, with people not getting healthcare, with hungry kids not getting food. It is a piece of legislation that Tillis can't sell back home, and you won't be able to either, my Republican colleagues.

How can any Senator go home and tell their constituents, ``I am sorry. I took away your healthcare because I wanted to give tax breaks to billionaires''?

Yet, Republicans are dead set on walking off a cliff by passing a bill they know will be ruinous to their own constituents.

That is why Democrats--Senate Democrats--forced this Chamber to read the bill cover to cover. That is why we debated all day yesterday, and now it is the Republicans' turn to vote.

Later this morning--very soon--we will begin the vote-arama process. Senate Democrats will bring one amendment after the other--again and again and again--to put Republicans on the record. We will begin this morning with a motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair to try to reverse Republicans' brazen attempts to deceive the American people about the true costs of the bill.

Republicans are doing something that has never been done before in the Senate by deploying fake math and budgetary hocus-pocus to make it seem like their billionaire giveaways don't cost anything. That is obviously outrageous, and it is absurd that the Budget chair is taking the Senate down this fact-free road. He is helping erode and even destroy the Senate. Every Senator will soon have an opportunity to reject this nonsense.

Every Senator will soon have an opportunity to reject this nonsense and vote for commonsense budgeting. Americans will be watching.

Later this morning, I will offer a very simple amendment to send this bill back to the Finance Committee so that we can get rid of any provision that raises healthcare costs for families and small businesses to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. My colleagues will offer many other amendments here too. We will see, once and for all, if Republicans really meant all of those nice things they have been saying about strengthening Medicare and about protecting middle-class families or if they were just lying. The American people will find out in a few hours.

Republicans have said they don't want to cut Medicaid. Today, we will give you the chance.

Republicans say they want to prioritize the middle class. Today, we will give you the chance.

Our amendments will give Republicans so many chances to defend Medicaid and SNAP and good-paying jobs and clean energy that, if they say no, they will regret it long after this debate is done.

Finally, to my Republican colleagues, let me offer a warning in good faith. You all know that Donald Trump makes things up. He has no regard for the truth. When he talks about this bill, he is lying. When Donald Trump says this bill won't cut Medicaid, he is lying. When he says this bill will grow the economy, he is lying. When he says this is the best thing Congress could pass for our country, he is lying.

So what are my colleagues on the Republican side going to do--listen to someone who just makes things up? listen to someone who peddles lies and fantasies? follow Donald Trump off a political cliff by passing a bill that will be disastrous for the people back home or will my colleagues stand up for the American people--stand up to protect healthcare, good-paying jobs, and middle-class families?

The American people will not forget what Republicans do in this Chamber today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, well, we are about to vote on something that we have never seen before in the Senate, and rather than be honest with the American people about the true costs of these billionaire giveaways--and, by the way, I didn't hear Trump campaigning on tax breaks for billionaires, which is the main thrust of this bill. He wouldn't tell them about that.

But Republicans are doing something the Senate has never done before: deploying fake math, accounting gimmicks, to hide the true cost of the bill.

Look, Republicans can use whatever budgetary gimmicks they want to try to make the math work on paper, but you can't paper over the real- life economic consequences of adding tens of trillions to the debt, and that is what this does, make no mistake about it. And it is the way we have always calculated things.

So to vote yes on this--make no mistake about it, my colleagues--will in a dramatic way further erode the Senate. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment, the first we will offer, is simple. It undoes the travesty that is at the core of the Republican bill. Their bill, the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which is really a big, ugly betrayal, cuts taxes for billionaires by taking away healthcare from millions of people. My amendment simply says that if people's healthcare costs go up, the billionaire tax cuts vanish.

Republicans--you can tell in the speeches already--are on the defensive. They know how bad this bill is for the American people. They know that Donald Trump is lying when he says it won't cut healthcare.

I salute my colleague from North Carolina. We all heard what our colleague from North Carolina had to say yesterday about this bill. My guess is about half--maybe even more than half--of the Republicans in the Senate agree with him. But he had the courage to speak the truth. He said it himself: The bill devastates his State. But make no mistake about it, it will devastate the States of almost every Republican here.

It is outrageous--outrageous--to take food out of the mouths of hungry children, to take healthcare away from people who need it to survive--

--just for tax cuts for billionaires, and the American people know it.

To my colleagues--

To my colleagues, in conclusion, I say you know what the right thing is. Say no to cutting healthcare. Say no to gutting jobs.

Say no to this shameful, backwards bill and vote yes on my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Six months.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Risch and I be permitted to speak for up to 1 minute each regarding the recent tragedy in our State.

Mr. President, the Senate has important work to accomplish today to prevent a more than $4 trillion tax hike on American workers and families, and we will accomplish that goal. However, while business continues here, life for the North Idaho community of Coeur d'Alene remains at a very painful standstill as we mourn the horrific loss of two firefighters.

Yesterday afternoon, firefighters from Coeur d'Alene and Kootenai County were responding to a fire on Canfield Mountain. Upon arrival, they were ambushed by gunfire. Two brave firefighters were murdered. Another has already undergone surgery for gunshot wounds.

As we continue our work today, I ask my colleagues to join me in sending your prayers for that firefighter's full recovery, for the deceased victims, for their families, and for the entire North Idaho community grieving this heinous act.

As we close, I would like to thank my colleagues from Washington as well as all of you. Many of you have come up and expressed your sentiments today.

I would say even the Federal workers were there, the FBI and others. There was a huge influx of support from those who put their lives on the line every day, and some lost their lives yesterday.

Because of that, I ask you to join us for just a moment of silence and prayer.

(Moment of silence.)

Thank you, Mr. President.

This is something we will hear a lot of today, and this will just be the first shot at it.

The bottom line is, billionaires are going to pay the same amount of taxes after this bill as they paid before this bill. They are going to pay the same amount. This notion about billionaires getting tax cuts at the expense of everybody else is just the politics of class rather than the politics of fear. The rest of the argument is the politics of fear.

The reality is, the reforms we are putting into place are to try to rein in control of wasteful and fraudulent and abusive spending that actually diverts resources away from the people who these programs really deserve to receive.

I urge a strong ``no'' vote against this amendment.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. President, more of the politics of fear. Rural hospitals and providers not only deliver essential healthcare services in their communities but also strengthen local economies, employing hundreds of individuals and supporting regional business development.

Unfortunately, for far too long, some rural hospitals have struggled to achieve financial stability, even with a wide range of targeted payment enhancements. These issues predate the consideration of the reforms that we are including in the legislation today.

Let me be clear. This amendment is intended to derail this very bill. The Finance Committee has a long tradition of coming together on bipartisan issues, like bolstering our rural healthcare system. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to advance permanent solutions to provide rural providers, from telehealth to innovative reimbursement models.

Today, we need to pass this essential legislation, and I oppose this amendment.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Madam President, Republicans are restoring integrity to the Medicaid Program by closing loopholes and preventing States from exploiting Medicaid Federal match rates. States' provider taxes for nursing homes and immediate-care facilities are not phased down under this bill.

Additionally, the bill repeals the harmful Biden administration's nursing home staffing rule that would have forced the closure of nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, Republicans are strengthening Medicaid and setting it on a more fiscally sustainable path by targeting waste, fraud, and abuse.

This bill does not take Medicaid away from children, the elderly, the disabled, or the medically frail, adults caring for children and elderly relatives, or any recipient the program was originally designed to help. It increases eligibility for home- and community-based services, which will increase access to mental health or substance abuse disorder treatments.

If this motion were adopted, it would delay a vote on this bill and stand in the way of Republicans' efforts to prevent a $4 trillion tax hike on working families and deliver additional tax relief to the middle class.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, no decision has been made about tariffs in this bill. More importantly, none of the President's tariffs rely on any authorities made from a prior reconciliation bill or are contingent on this bill.

We can and should have a debate about the precise approaches, including how best to incorporate tariff policy, but this is not the appropriate vehicle to have a serious debate on trade.

If adopted, this motion would commit the whole bill to a delay and stand in the way of our efforts to prevent a $4 trillion tax hike on working families and deliver additional tax relief to the middle class.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. President, Democrats contend that they want to increase and extend the child tax credit and ensure that big corporations and the ultrawealthy pay their fair share.

Despite the rhetoric behind these claims, I remind my colleagues that Republicans created the child tax credit, expanded its availability, and doubled the amount of the credit in the TCJA, which we are working on tonight.

This bill not only makes that doubled child tax credit permanent but also increases it, providing significant relief for families. In addition, as a result of the TCJA cutting taxes for, overwhelmingly, the majority of Americans, with the middle class receiving the largest proportional benefit of these cuts, Republicans made the Tax Code more progressive, not less. The legislation before us makes those tax provisions permanent.

Americans deserve more than empty platitudes. They deserve meaningful tax relief and meaningful results.

Vote on Motion

I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the CBO letter of June 29 to the ranking member of the Budget Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, and in this letter, it notes that the baseline was prepared--the alternative baseline--based on a request made by the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget.

But the letter goes on to say this:

The CBO estimates that enacting this title [VII] would

increase the deficit by $3.5 trillion over the 2025-3034

period.

Clearly, that amount, done by honest numbers from CBO, exceeds the budget resolution level, and, therefore, we should not affirm the ruling of the Chair.

It is said in this ruling, I just heard, that precedent provides a foundation for this. But, in fact, the ability of the Chair to create a phony baseline has never been used in reconciliation, not ever, and, in fact, the example cited over Head Start--Head Start--that never appeared in any budget reconciliation.

And, in fact, that conversation about Jeffrey Zients that we heard from the majority leader, that, too, was absolutely wrong. Current law was used for estimating the cost of that bill.

This is a 51-year tradition of the Senate for honest numbers--

I further ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today to cut any part of this ``Big Ugly Bill'' that would force rural hospitals to limit their services or actually close their doors.

I have released a list of more than 300 rural hospitals across the country at risk of closing or stopping services because of any major cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

Today, that is what Republicans are guaranteeing with a $1 trillion cut to our healthcare system that they would create in this bill.

My Republican colleagues' so-called Medicaid cuts replacement fund is like giving aspirin to a cancer patient. It is not enough. It is pathetically inadequate to deal with the healthcare crisis Republicans are creating here today on the Senate floor.

No billionaire tax break or Donald Trump pat-on-the-back is worth the risk of people's lives.

Vote yes on this motion. Stop these healthcare cuts.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order. The amendment violates the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Once again, Republicans have chosen the comforting embrace of partisan politics, but here are a few facts to cut through the noise: Zero Federal dollars are spent on health coverage. Second, this policy dictates how States spent their own funds. What happened to States' rights? Third, this policy violates ``innocent until proven guilty'' because it even talks about those charged with a crime. But most importantly, what this amendment says is that if one person, despite State law, through a bureaucratic mistake is receiving funds, then the whole State pays a price and has their rate on expanded Medicaid changed from 90 percent to 80 percent.

This is a backdoor for 41 States--which includes the majority of Republican States--to reduce the Federal mandate from 90 percent to 80 percent, with huge, huge impact on the coverage of individuals across this country.

Haven't we done enough damage already to the fundamental principle of healthcare without this collective punishment of American citizens by reducing the State funding from 90 percent to 80 percent?

I renew my point of order.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2446 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, this amendment is about defending the integrity of the legislative process.

Every now and then, a new strategy creates either the appearance of a conflict of interest or a real conflict of interest. That is the case with elected officials who promote and/or sell cryptocoins in which they have a personal financial stake. These digital coins cost little to make, so the buyers know they are enriching the elected officials who are selling them. Some people believe, therefore, that perhaps they can influence government policy by buying these coins, enrich the individuals who serve in government, and, therefore, change policy. In fact, a buyer of $2 million in meme coins announced that he bought the coins to get favorable consideration in a change in trade policy.

My friends, the sale of cryptocoins by any of us for a financial benefit is corrupting our responsibility to govern by and for the people. Vote aye to defend the integrity of our ``we the people'' government.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 313 of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, I wouldn't have much dispute for subsidizing the out-of-pocket expenses of our public school teachers. When I was a child, my dad, the mechanic, said: Son, because we are so fortunate to live in America, if you go through the doors of that public school and you study hard, you can do just about anything.

So I am certainly a lifetime fan of public education.

But in addition to expanding this for public school teachers, it has a new policy of expanding it to homeschool teachers. Well, that is quite a new policy to put into a reconciliation bill. It really should be in the Education Committee and debated and bring people to bear.

I am not immediately struck that that is a great idea, but certainly, as a new policy, it should go through committee. For that reason--for that reason--I think I will do a point of order on this particular amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 4106 of the fiscal year 2018 Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 71, of the 115th Congress, known as the Senate pay-as-you-go point of order.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2772 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, we just spent 13 hours on motions to commit. I am not blaming my Democratic colleagues because we had to agree to it. But anybody with a brain above a single-cell organism knows that a motion to commit has no chance of passing. So, basically, we have been standing around for 13 hours. We might as well have just been standing around sucking on our teeth.

Now, I would like to ask for order in this Chamber. At least we can have that.

Mr. President, in this bill, $1 billion is set aside to be spent by September 30, 2027, to carry out the Defense Production Act. That is it. That is all there is.

Now, I am not a big fan of government-directed industrialization. Government-directed industrialization is when government, with its superior instincts and unfathomable judgment, decides to pick winners and losers in the private sector.

This business gets some money; but you, Ms. Businesswoman, you can't have the money. I am against that for two reasons. No. 1, it is immoral. It is unfair to people who don't get the money, the gift from government. And, No. 2, when government does it, when it picks winners and losers, government consistently picks losers.

Now, I was against it in the prior administration, and, just recently, in my subcommittee, we had a hearing where the prior administration handed out $90 billion in the last 76 days of its administration in gifts and loans to entities in the private sector. And I raised fresh hell.

And now we are about to do it again--a billion dollars. Now I am--and that is all it says, a billion dollars to be spent, period.

Now, I have been told that the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior are going to describe, in their unfettered discretion, who is going to get this money in the private sector, and they are both two good men. I know both of those Secretaries; I voted for them. They are total ballers. I love them to death. But when I am in Washington, I live by this adage: Trust in God, but tie up your camel.

Trust in God, but tie up your camel.

This bill will say they can give these gifts and grants to whomever they want, but Congress has to approve them.

Now, about--I don't know--about an hour ago, I got a call from one of my supporters. And you know what he said to me? He said: Kennedy, for your own good, you need to pull down this amendment. You have to pull down this amendment. Kennedy, for your own good, you have to pull down this amendment.

And you know what I told him? I said Scooter--I said, Scooter, there are only two things I have to do in this world: be cool and die, and I am not pulling down this amendment.

It wasn't right when it was done in the prior administration; it is not right now that we are in charge. This is Congress's job, and, by God, we ought to do it.

And I reserve my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, my esteemed colleague and I--

Thank you, Scooter--I mean, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues' support. I don't mean any disrespect to anybody.

This town operates on two wrongs don't make it right, but they do make it even. It is time that Congress have a say in how the money is being spent. It doesn't say the money can't be spent; it just says Congress gets to approve it.

Excuse me, Mr. President.

Thank you, sir.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the point of order, reminding the body that I am not striking the spending--reminding the body that I am not striking the spending. I am just asking Congress to approve it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, as you know, as we all know, many of our teachers in America come out-of-pocket to pay for school supplies.

In 2002, 23 years ago, we allowed teachers to deduct $250 when they come out-of-pocket. My amendment would raise that deduction from $250 to $600. Teachers, right now, spend an average of $650 out of their own pockets, so we would allow them to deduct that instead of the amount we set in 2002.

I ask a favorable consideration of my amendment. This will just let teachers break even for coming out-of-pocket.

Do I have any time left, Mr. President?

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and on behalf of all of the teachers in America and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move, on behalf of all the teachers in America, to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment--and, once again, on behalf of our teachers--and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion