Budget Reconciliation
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to our Republican colleagues' budget proposal. This plan is all about giving tax cuts to billionaires and then finding the money to pay for it. Let's make that really clear.
This week, they are moving forward in both the House and the Senate with their plans. While the plans are different, the destination is the same. The results of this--when you look at the details of the House bill, of the Senate bill; when you look at the undermining of the Affordable Care Act, which has given healthcare to so many people, and you look at the undermining in the House proposal of the prescription drug negotiations for Medicare, which is so key; when you look at what would happen to rural hospitals, what would happen with nutrition for kids and veterans; infrastructure projects, our subject right now--all to find this over $2 trillion for tax cuts for the wealthy.
It is no wonder that two-thirds of Americans--and this is in a number of public polls--think the President isn't focused enough on lowering costs, and no wonder they believe by a 13-point margin that these policies will actually increase inflation.
Costs are high. Americans are struggling to make ends meet. They actually thought that this administration would come in and do something about it. And my concern, which you will hear from me and from many of my colleagues, is that this budget proposal will only make things worse.
Over the last few years, our workers and businesses have created millions of good-paying jobs. Just a few years ago, we came together to pass the bipartisan infrastructure law, which has made historic investments in our roads, ports, bridges, high-speed internet, and more. I remember how proud we were, those of us who worked on this legislation, that we had such strong bipartisan support for this bill.
But, unfortunately, these proposals from the Senate and the House would undo this progress, particularly when it comes to broadband. In 2025, we can't talk about infrastructure without talking about broadband. High-speed internet is necessary for everything from education to healthcare, to finding jobs, not to mention keeping in touch with family members.
I have a number of small businesses that, when they don't have high- speed broadband, they actually have to go into town to a McDonald's parking lot to contact their customers because, in this modern day, you cannot do business even in the smallest of towns without having high- speed internet. Right now, more than 20 million Americans are left out because they still don't have a reliable internet connection at home.
As cochair of the bipartisan Senate Broadband Caucus and the author of the original bill that got included in the bipartisan infrastructure law, I have always believed that if they can have high-speed internet in a country like Iceland, a country with active volcanoes that are spewing lava, maybe--just maybe--we can get it in every corner in our own country.
That is why we fought to make sure the bipartisan infrastructure law included historic funding to deliver high-speed internet. That funding is there. It is going out. It has been going out. It will go out in the future. I would love if it had just all happened in 1 year, but that funding is going out. But that progress is going to be ground to a halt if this money instead goes to tax cuts for the wealthy.
Slashing funding for infrastructure and high-speed internet is only the beginning. The budget also threatens healthcare for over 8 million seniors and more than 31 million kids. On top of that, it would force rural hospitals to shut their doors, and it would threaten the future of Medicare drug price negotiations, which I noted earlier.
Even the first 10 drugs under our bill, the first 10 drugs alone--and no one has disputed this--because of the 60-percent decrease after the negotiations with the pharma companies, 70-percent decrease, on those 10 drugs would save seniors, in out-of-pocket, $1.5 billion in just 10 years. Pharma got a sweetheart deal 20-some years ago. I wasn't here when that happened, but it is time to change it. We did. The first 10 drugs came out. Now this administration has been handed the torch to handle the 15 drugs that need to be next negotiated. After that, they pick 15 more, and hopefully these are all blockbuster drugs.
But if this is undermined, as happened in the House bill, in a sop to pharmaceutical companies--if this is undermined, so much money will be left on the table and go to the rich people instead of the consumers who need those less expensive drugs.
We should not be paying twice as much as other industrialized nations for pharmaceuticals in this country where so much taxpayer money already went into research and development.
Unfortunately, under our budget that we are getting proposed here by Republicans in the Senate and the House, seniors won't be the only ones forced to rely on food banks. Republicans are planning to make sweeping cuts to programs that millions of Americans rely on for nutritious food.
Addressing hunger shouldn't be a red issue or a blue issue; it should be an American issue. In fact, this body has often worked across the aisle to improve nutrition programs. While grocery prices continue to increase, seniors, children, and veterans should not be left hungry to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. This is making it harder and harder for Americans to put dinner on the table.
In fact, we found out that due to Elon Musk's activities, I guess, several avian flu experts--people working on the frontline--were accidentally fired. While the prices of eggs have been going up sky- high, these people were removed from their jobs. They are now fast- tracking a rehiring of these employees, saying that it was an accidental mistake.
We really can't afford accidental mistakes for watching the nuclear stockpile or trying to solve this problem of avian flu anymore. We have to actually help people instead of increasing their costs or their risk when it comes to safety.
The budget slashes funding that Americans across the country rely on to pay their mortgages and makes it harder--the House bill--for them to afford flood insurance. This will make life harder, not to mention more expensive, for the Minnesotans whose homes were flooded over the summer, for people in Kentucky who are facing deadly flooding as we speak, and countless other Americans.
These proposals--cuts to housing, healthcare, infrastructure--have one important thing in common: None of it is going to lower the costs for the American people. It is going to increase their costs--all to give trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthy.
I have no problem bringing the costs down for people making under $400,000 a year, which is the vast majority of my constituents. I have no problem with keeping those tax cuts in place. But that is not what we are talking about when we look at this major, major overreach and expansion.
I don't remember Republicans campaigning on higher costs and higher debt, but that is exactly what is going to happen if these budgets pass.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source