Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, it was over 20 years ago that our office was contacted in Chicago. It was a young woman named Tereza Lee. She had been born in Korea and as an infant was taken to Brazil. And then her father, who was a Protestant minister, brought her and her mother to Chicago.

She contacted our office because she had a problem when it came to her citizenship. It seems that the decision to move her around as an infant, made by her parents, left her undocumented.

Her family didn't have a lot of money. She grew up with her father who was a Protestant minister, trying to find the proper church. And she went from church to church as her father preached sermons and made a few dollars to keep the family together.

While her father was practicing his sermons at the church, she was in the back room banging away at the piano. As a student in public schools in Chicago, she got her first opportunity for real lessons through something called the Merit Music Program. She was great--extraordinary.

By the time she finished high school, people recognized in her an extraordinary musical genius. They encouraged her to apply to the best--Juilliard and Manhattan Conservatory of Music. As she filled out the application to go to these great schools, she would run across that question: What is your nationality? What is your citizenship?

She never thought to ask. Turns out she was undocumented. She didn't know what that meant in terms of her future, and a friend of hers contacted our office to see what we could do.

The law is very clear for Tereza Lee. Although it was her parents and others who made decisions in her life that resulted in an undocumented status, the law of the United States said that she had to leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come back in.

Didn't sound right to me. She didn't make any of those decisions; her parents did. She had done everything she was supposed to do: go to school, get good grades, develop her talent. And yet, we were rejecting her and sending her out of the country.

It is at that point that I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. If you talked about Dreamers before that bill was introduced, most people would refer you to the British rock group Freddie and the Dreamers, which very few people remember.

But since then, the word ``Dreamers'' has come to characterize these young people who, by decisions of their parents, are in the United States undocumented.

Today, we mark the 13th anniversary of the program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. It is a program which affects these Dreamers and their future.

I first introduced the DREAM Act with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch in 2001--24 years ago. I have included it in many forms of legislation that comes to the Senate floor, repeatedly introduced it as an amendment over the years. I have never quite been able to reach the point where I can meet the 60-vote requirement to waive the filibuster or to pass it in the House the same year.

After years of congressional action, in 2010, I wrote a letter to a man who is my former colleague from Illinois who had been elected President of the

United States, Barrack Obama. And I asked him--and Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, joined me in asking President Obama if he could do something to stop the deportation of these young Dreamers.

Two years later, President Obama announced the DACA Program. The DACA Program has protected nearly 835,000 Dreamers, many of whom who have gone on to pursue higher education, purchase homes, start businesses, and make America a better country to live in.

These young people who grew up in this country alongside my own kids, went to school, stood up in the morning before class and pledged allegiance to that flag and believed that they were real Americans from the start--but not in the eyes of the law.

DACA recipients have started families; 37 percent have U.S. citizen children; and 935,000 U.S. citizens live with DACA holders. It is a large chunk of our population, and they have done dramatic things to make this a better country.

DACA recipients greatly contribute to our labor force. They are teachers, nurses, workers, doctors, and more. They boost our economy, providing nearly $16 billion to the U.S. economy each year.

I have been coming to the Senate floor for 20 years telling the stories of Dreamers and DACA recipients. I don't think there is any better way to describe who they are and what they go through to try to become American citizens and be part of the future of this country.

I would like to highlight one of them today.

This is the 149th story of a Dreamer that I have shared on the floor of the Senate. Alondra O. was born in Mexico and moved to the St. Louis metropolitan area when she was 5 years old. She was a great student.

She became a member of the National Honor Society. She was certified as a nurse assistant, a patient care technician, and phlebotomist all by the time she graduated from high school. Her dream was to become a full-time registered nurse. Do we need more nurses? Absolutely.

Despite the national nursing shortage and her excellent qualifications, Alondra was unable to get a nursing license in her home State of Missouri because State law there prohibits DACA recipients from becoming nurses.

But she didn't give up.

Missouri's loss became my home State of Illinois's gain. And today, Alondra serves as an emergency department registered nurse in Alton, IL, just across the river from Missouri.

Sadly, Alondra still lives in fear today every day that all of her hard work would mean nothing if DACA is eliminated. She has lived in this country since she was 5 years old. She should not be forced to leave the only home she has ever known simply because Congress has failed to do its job to fix our broken immigration system.

Alondra should be able to work in this critical field where we desperately need nurses, wherever her services are most needed, and do so without fear of deportation.

I have heard a lot said in political campaigns about murderers, rapists, terrorists, and mentally deranged people who were seeking to make a future in the United States. What about Alondra? Does she fit any of those categories? Of course not.

She, against the odds, built a great reputation and a great resume, with her education, training, and work experience. She is doing work in her field in a part of our State where we desperately need nurses. She is no threat to anyone. She is not a danger. She is, in fact, a beacon of hope for those people who are sick and need a good nurse.

Unfortunately, there has been a relentless campaign to eliminate DACA and deport Dreamers, so the future for Alondra and other DACA recipients remains legally uncertain.

Basic question: Is America better off to have Alondra the nurse in Alton, IL, here or to deport her from the United States to a country she hasn't seen since she was 5 years old?

More than 100,000 Dreamers have initial DACA applications that are still pending. They are in limbo because for years we haven't allowed those who qualified to apply to join the ranks of DACA. DACA was always intended to be a temporary program to give Congress time to pass a permanent solution. We are not very good at passing anything in Congress.

Now in their 13th year, it is time for us to honor the Dreamers' patience, act on our promises, and provide them with a pathway to citizenship.

My mother was an immigrant to this country. I am proud of immigrants. Our family came here with nothing, not even speaking the language, worked hard, and established themselves.

My mother--eighth grade education, no experience in high school or college--raised three boys to serve this country. My two brothers were in the U.S. Navy, and I serve here in the U.S. Senate. Is immigration important for this country? The Durbin family believes that it is.

I am going to continue to fight for the Dreamers, continue to fight for DACA.

I urge my Republican colleagues, be thoughtful on the issue of immigration. Don't penalize Alondra, this wonderful young woman who has worked so hard to become a registered nurse in my State of Illinois. Give her a chance to make America and my State a better place.

We remember this anniversary of the DACA Program and thank President Obama for his vision to realize these young people could make this a better country and realize we have to be thoughtful when it comes to immigration.

If you are a danger to this country, we don't want you here, we don't want you coming here, but if you are going to make this a better place to live, we not only want you, we desperately need you. The DACA Program represents hundreds of thousands of young people who prove that every single day of their lives.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, what is the hurry? What is the big hurry on this Big Beautiful Bill that President Trump wants to see the Congress pass?

Well, the hurry is to make sure we don't stop and read it. It is 1,000 pages. And as we read it, we discover things included in that bill that passed the House of Representatives which may not be appealing to the people across America. The House of Representatives passed this bill by one vote.

It ends up having a direct impact on many people across this country. Just imagine this, if you will. They are considering a bill, a tax bill, that will eliminate health insurance coverage for 16 million Americans. More people and families will lose health insurance coverage by virtue of this Big Beautiful Bill than any legislation we have passed in modern memory. In fact, just the opposite has been true. I have been here under the Affordable Care Act with President Obama when we expanded the reach of health insurance. Now, President Trump has us going in the opposite direction.

Some Republican Senators, like Josh Hawley in my neighboring State of Missouri, have criticized this because he realizes how many people he represents count on Medicaid, the basic government program for health insurance. Senator Hawley says, even as a Republican, he can't support that provision. No one should support that provision.

If you ever lived in a moment in your life with a sick child-- seriously sick child--and no health insurance, you will never forget it. I know. I have been there. To think that 16 million families would lose their health insurance is impossible to imagine.

We received a report from the Congressional Budget Office just last week. They are neutral. They are not Democrats; they are not Republicans. They revealed that the Republican proposal would cost 16 million families their health insurance coverage, the biggest cut to healthcare in American history.

No wonder then that Republicans want to move this bill quickly. They don't want to talk about the impact it is going to have on the Medicaid Program. Medicaid, of course, is a program that provides health insurance based on a person's income. Lower income individuals qualify for it; those in higher incomes don't.

The facts are coming out now that many of the Republicans in the House are saying: Well, we didn't read the bill when it went through there. They have

a chance to read it now. Republican and Democratic Senators have a chance to read it here. To make sure that the Senate Republicans don't make the same mistake as the House, here is a more detailed breakdown.

With this analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, we have new estimates on how this bill impacts each and every State. Two hundred ten thousand people in my neighboring State of Missouri, Senator Hawley's State, could lose their health insurance coverage--210,000. In Iowa, nearly 100,000 people can lose their health plans. And our neighbor Indiana, 250,000 Hoosiers could lose the peace of mind that comes with having health insurance. It is the same story coast-to- coast: 40,000 people in Maine, 26,000 Alaskans, they are all going to be victimized.

You say to yourself, What is it that is so compelling that the Republicans feel they can stand up and tell 16 million people in America you lose your health insurance? What will they use that money for? What will they take it to the bank for? For something very basic, tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America.

Oh, there they go again, Democrats talking about tax cuts. Many of the Republicans deny that this is going to happen, but the facts are there. They estimate that the top 0.1 percent of wage earners in America under the Republican plan that passed the House will get an annual tax break of $400,000. Republicans quickly add: Go ahead and tell the rest of the story. Everybody gets a tax break.

OK, let's go down to the other end of the spectrum: $400,000 for 0.1 percent wage earners. What about those making minimum wage? What will they get as a tax break? Twenty dollars a month. Twenty bucks a month while the cost of healthcare goes up and the cost of their margins go up--$20 a month. This, to me, is absolutely indefensible.

Friday, I visited a hospital in Chicago. It is a special hospital. It is La Rabida, a children's hospital on the South Side of the town right on Lake Michigan. It is a wonderful hospital. Ninety percent of the families that bring their children to La Rabida Hospital qualify for Medicaid. These are families of limited means, and they turn to this highly professional hospital which has a reputation of caring for the poorest kids as well as the richest kids. They treat them all the same, and they treat them well.

When I visited the hospital, they told me a story of one of their patients. Her name is Leyone. She was born prematurely, 26 weeks. When she was born, she was only the size of the palm of your hand. She was given just days to survive. She needed a ventilator, tracheotomy tube, central line, an IV-like device that brought medicine to her heart, and much, much more.

Today, Leyone is 4 years old. It is a miracle. Thanks to the incredible care provided by La Rabida and the love of so many people, she is here.

Leyone's family was covered by Medicaid, the most highly targeted program for cuts in this Big Beautiful Bill.

Ninety percent of the patients that come through the doors of La Rabida Children's Hospital in Chicago are on Medicaid.

What is going to happen to that hospital? I will tell you what the hospitals tell me. Many of them are barely getting by, barely--not just in the city of Chicago but my downstate areas as well. They came out to see me 3 weeks ago, 20 hospital administrators from downstate Illinois. On their own, they wanted to tell me the story that the bill that passed the House of Representatives--the big beautiful Trump bill, the tax bill we are talking about here--will be devastating to these hospitals. Some of them won't survive.

What does it mean to a small- or medium-sized city that is lucky enough to have a good hospital and lose it? Well, the obvious: If you need emergency medical care, it is a longer drive. If that baby is about to be born, it is a longer drive.

When it comes down to treatment, these hospitals provide the first in urgent care, and if that hospital closes, what happens? Well, it takes longer to get that care. In addition to that, it also means that a major part of the local economy is gone--gone. How are you going to attract a business or keep a business when you lose your hospital? That is what is at stake here because of the cuts in the Medicaid Program.

So the Trump Big Beautiful Bill is designed to cut the program that these hospitals rely on most--the Medicaid Program.

Now it turns out that because they add so much to the deficit-- trillions of dollars to the deficit--for this tax cut, you are also facing the possibility of something called sequestration. What that means is that there will be less coverage for Medicare.

Medicare is a program created in the 1960s under President Lyndon Baines Johnson that provides for families who are elderly and need some help in paying medical bills. It worked miracles. People started living longer and being healthy and being able to survive. But now they want to cut back on Medicare as part of sequestration. This would be devastating to the many people who count on it.

It is not just La Rabida that would face devastating consequences under these Medicaid cuts; red States and blue States will also suffer. When you cut $800 billion out of Medicaid, hospitals that are on the edge close. Already today, 26 rural hospitals in Kansas--26 hospitals in Kansas--and 9 in Missouri are at risk of immediate closure. This Big Beautiful Bill could push them over the brink.

According to America's Essential Hospitals, uncompensated care costs for hospitals will increase by $42 billion in a single year under this Republican Big Beautiful Bill. For the rural hospitals that are hanging by a thread, this bill could permanently close their doors.

Hospitals are not the only ones. The Medicaid Program provides for help in paying the bills of over half of the people who are in nursing homes. So if your parents or grandparents are in a skilled care facility or in a nursing home and you are happy with where they are and you want to keep them there, you have a new challenge. If the Big Beautiful Bill providing tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America passes, the compensation to that nursing home will go down. When that goes down, many of these nursing homes are going to close, and the choices for someone you love in your family will be limited.

As if an increase in healthcare premiums isn't enough, the cost of basic goods will skyrocket under this Republican plan. The ``Big Beautiful Betrayal'' will raise energy bills up to $400 a year for families and 10 percent for businesses. Remember what I told you the tax break was for people who are on a basic income in this country--20 bucks a month? Well, it turns out $400 a year, which is dramatically more than 20 bucks a month, is going to make it even harder. It will increase costs by hundreds of dollars a year for 80 million households, all while giving $400,000 to Elon Musk and the wealthiest Americans.

If housing weren't already too expensive, many Americans will see their mortgages increase by $600 a year. Want to follow your passion and start a business? Small business loans are estimated to increase under the Big Beautiful Bill by $1,000 a year. Tariffs are estimated to raise costs for American households by around $2,500.

If this last election were about the cost of living and giving families a fighting chance to survive paycheck to paycheck, this bill is devastating for those who aren't the wealthiest in America. I urge everyone to learn the facts and know what effect this Republican tax bill will have on families across my State and others.

This year, for the Fourth of July, the most American thing we can do is, on a bipartisan basis, stop this disaster. What does it take to say pause? stop? We don't want to cut Medicaid. We don't want to take health insurance away from 16 million people. We don't want to see the expenses of families going up. What does it take? It takes four--four-- Republican Senators who will step up and say: This is a mistake.

Donald Trump is trying to rush us into something which is not good for American families. It is good for billionaires. If you happen to be in that category, this is a great day for you. But for ordinary families who are struggling with their regular bills they have to pay, the Big Beautiful Bill is a big, beautiful betrayal of American families.

I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on Tuesday, President Trump sent Congress proposed rescissions. A rescissions bill is a cut to already enacted and funded programs. Looking closely at those cuts that have been proposed by the administration, I would like to speak to them this morning on the floor.

Where has the President suggested we cut a very miniscule percentage of the Federal budget to fund deficit-busting tax cuts for the ultrawealthy? From bipartisan programs--programs that both parties have supported for years: programs that help the poorest in the world survive, even lead a normal life, suffering from HIV and AIDS; that help countries become healthy democracies and trading partners, literally, for the United States; that support peacekeeping efforts to prevent the spread of war and migration; programs that counter Chinese influence and help stem the flow of illicit drugs; radio and TV stations that provide news for America. That is where the President turned to make the cuts that he wants the money for to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America.

For as long as I have been in Congress, there has always been a strong bipartisan support for foreign assistance programs. You ask the average person in the street, in Illinois or Oklahoma: What percentage of the Federal budget do you believe is spent on foreign aid?

The guesses are usually 10 to 20 percent. It is less than 1 percent.

There was an understanding that modest efforts like those, which cost just over 1 percent of the Federal budget, were the right thing to do by both political parties. You see, by helping stem pandemics and war and helping countries become healthy, free-market democracies, we are actually helping

our own country. We are stopping wars and upheavals before they start and spill over borders, alleviating the future need to send our troops into harm's way and strengthening our own national security at home by mitigating instability around the world.

We are creating allies in the process and trading partners for U.S. farmers and other American businesses that make for good jobs here at home.

We are also demonstrating the best of America when it comes to our values--compassion and ingenuity--something President George W. Bush understood when he created PEPFAR, which has saved millions of lives around the world from HIV and AIDS.

That is why Ronald Reagan and John McCain--no pushovers--understood the incredible power and strategic value of helping countries across the globe become free, democratic, and prosperous.

So why in the world would we cut such low-cost but impactful programs? I don't understand it. If there were international programs that were ineffective--and I admit such work can be difficult and with mistakes--then the place to fix them is through the regular appropriations process, not the wholesale gutting of a complete program like USAID.

And a word, Mr. President, on the equally shortsighted proposed cuts to public broadcasting. While President Trump claims that eliminating funding for public media will end PBS's and NPR's so-called ``woke'' agenda--I can't even define that for you, but that is the reason given--he fails to understand that more than 70 percent of this funding goes to local public media stations.

I think people in Central Illinois, where my home is, would be hard- pressed to even explain to you what a ``woke'' agenda is on National Public Radio.

In rural communities, these publicly funded news stations are often the only place to get good, up-to-the-minute information and to have the kinds of warnings that are necessary when extreme weather is on the way. They provide local news coverage, educational programming, and emergency weather alerts.

Without public broadcasting, how will people in Kansas and Texas learn of tornado alerts? How will children who lack access to preschool in Idaho or in South Dakota be able to receive any education before kindergarten?

These cuts make no sense, and I call on my Republican colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, to look at the impacts they are going to have objectively across America.