Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title United States Code, of the Rule Submitted By the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to ``Emissions Budget and Allowance Allocations for Indiana Under the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it is by way of real honor to bring the interns on their shadow day to track my participation in hearings and speeches and floor votes and conversation with other Senators because it is really hard for our interns to get a full vision of what we do as Senators if they are just in the office helping to answer the mail-- because a good share of what they do is writing responses to all the questions that Oregonians write about.
I will never forget the time I spent with Senator Hatfield when I was an intern and had a chance to essentially be his floor monitor 49 years ago. At that time, there was no television on the floor, and there was no fax machine. Of course, there was no internet. There was no cell phone. So each Senator had somebody monitoring the debate, and my assignment was monitoring the debate on the Tax Reform Act of 1976.
There were 125 votes on that. And I sat up in the balcony up here, in the staff section, with many other staff members. The bells would ring, and we would run down to where the reporters hang out outside the double doors now here. I and other staff members would hang out, waiting for our Senators to come out of the elevator, and brief them about the amendment that was being considered. Because there was no television on the floor, folks back in the office had no idea what was being debated and what folks back home thought about the issue.
So I do appreciate the opportunity to help our interns get a fuller vision of the work we do here in the Senate. Government Funding
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my reason for coming to the floor now is to weigh in on Senator Rand Paul's proposed budget.
Now, if we could turn the clock back to the beginning of July, Senate Republicans passed President Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill.
Many of us consider it a big, ugly betrayal because its core message was that families lose and billionaires win. That was not President Trump's message during his campaign. During his campaign, he said he was going to be fighting for families. Then he gets sworn in just down this hallway in the Rotunda. Who does he have standing behind him? Champions for families? healthcare? for education? for housing? for investment in infrastructure? No. Billionaires.
That revealed what he was really up to, and that entire bill hurt families. Why? To fund tax breaks for billionaires. Kicking 15 million Americans off their health insurance to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Slashing nutrition assistance for millions of children. Why? In order to give tax breaks to billionaires. Running up $30 trillion in additional national debt over the next 30 years. Why? To fund tax breaks for billionaires. It is pretty astounding that a single Member of this body would have voted for that bill running up $30 trillion in debt.
Every single person who gave speeches back home that said ``I am all about being fiscally responsible''--what could possibly be more irresponsible than cutting nutrition for children and cutting healthcare for 15 million Americans in order to make the richest Americans even richer? It is like the worst possible reason for a deficit or a debt.
Families lose; billionaires win.
Now Senator Paul has introduced a budget resolution that compounds that. He says that over the next 10 years, we should cut an additional $22 trillion out of the programs that serve Americans.
Now, if he had come to the floor and said ``We just passed a bill that runs up $30 trillion in debt to fund tax breaks for billionaires, and we are going to take away those tax breaks for billionaires in order to not run up $30 trillion,'' I would be right with him because that would be wise. But cutting fundamental programs for families and our national security?
Now, any responsible budget plan is going to tell you when its cuts are going to happen. So where does Senator Paul, my good friend from Kentucky--where does he say those spending cuts will happen? Where will that $22 trillion come from that he is eliminating over the next 10 years? Well, he doesn't answer the question. He says: I am going to create a new category in the budget called ``New Efficiencies, Consolidations, and Other Savings.'' Not one damn detail. How convenient that is.
I am just going to magically cut $22 trillion out of the spending over the next 10 years and not say a word about the damage it is going to do.
This is kind of a replay of what we saw in the reconciliation debate when our Republican colleagues used magic math and budget gimmicks and smoke and mirrors to slash programs for families and explode the debt.
Don't we owe it to our constituents, don't we owe it to Americans to be honest about what is being proposed? So I will tell you where those cuts are going to come from, something of that size. Well, they are going to come from Medicare. They are going to come from Medicaid. They are going to come from child nutrition. They are going to come from border security. They are going to come from law enforcement. They are going to come from national defense. They are going to come from veterans' care. They are going to come from environmental protection and investments in infrastructure.
Now, if you spread those cuts evenly over the discretionary budget lines over those 10 years, it cuts 38 percent of what we spend--38 percent. I am pretty sure some of my colleagues will say: Well, whatever you do, don't cut national defense and certainly don't cut support for our veterans.
So then what are we talking about? We are talking about a 48-percent cut in everything else.
OK. So voting for this Rand Paul budget, you are voting for essentially a 50-percent cut in Medicare, a 50-percent cut in Medicaid, a 50-percent cut in cancer research, a 50-percent cut on top of the cuts already made in child nutrition, and a 50-percent cut on investments in infrastructure. That is what you are voting for, and that is really beyond damaging to our Nation.
You want to cut Medicare in half? Well, then, put that in the line, explain what it is, and then vote for it. That would show some courage. If you really want Medicare cut in half, tell the American people that. Have the courage of your convictions. Don't hide it behind this funny line called ``New Efficiencies'' or something of that nature.
Well, there are obviously all these things you can find in the budget that need to be cut, and there have been some examples given. I am sure you can find some scientific research that most Americans would look at, even with full information, and they would say: Oh, yeah, we don't need to research that.
But, you know, sometimes the insights in science come from the most unexpected places. For example, there has been some commentary about silly-sounding Federal grants like studying Gila monster venom. Why would you study that? Well, then you find out that what was learned there helped create the drug Ozempic. Well, that is pretty big medical insight that has huge applications in terms of a variety of diseases but also in terms of addiction and in terms of weight loss.
You might say: Why would you study bird songs? Well, it turns out that the study of bird songs led to advances in hearing aid technology, allows people to distinguish sounds they want to hear from background noise so they can have a conversation in a crowded room.
I am just saying that I am sure there are individual items that could be found that sound absurd, but you know what--those are little tiny pennies. It is not cutting Medicare by 50 percent; it is not cutting Medicaid by 50 percent.
If you want to cut $22 trillion, cut it out of the tax breaks for billionaires. That is the real crime done by the families lose; billionaires win, big, ugly betrayal of a bill. Maybe that is the budget we should be voting on.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source