Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the nomination of Whitney Hermandorfer, President Trump's nominee to serve as judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In May, the President announced Ms. Hermandorfer was the very first judicial nominee of his second term. And now she is the President's first judicial nominee to come to the floor of the Senate. The President has been clear that his primary concern is not about his judicial nominee's experience, competence, or integrity. This President is not focused on temperament, independence, or respect for the rule of law. He is focused on a nominee's perceived loyalty to him and his agenda and a willingness to rule in favor of him and his administration. When we consider the President's priorities and Ms. Hermandorfer's record, it is easy to understand why the President nominated her to serve on the Sixth Circuit. At the Office of Tennessee Attorney General, Ms. Hermandorfer leads the Strategic Litigation Unit. Why is that significant? She is not just defending State laws in Tennessee. She has turned the Attorney General's Office to an advocacy arm for the Trump agenda. She has argued in support of President Trump's unconstitutional Executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship. This Executive order has been blocked by every judge who has considered it. One judge--appointed by President Ronald Reagan, I might add--said: I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one . . . This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. And yet Ms. Hermandorfer signed amicus briefs in support of the President's unlawful efforts to fire inspectors general and heads of independent Agencies. Her record makes it clear that, if confirmed, she would continue to enable, rather than check, an administration that has repeatedly exceeded its authority. Ms. Hermandorfer also refuses to acknowledge that President Trump lost the 2020 election. Let me repeat that: This nominee who seeks a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench, when asked the basic question as to whether Donald Trump won or lost the 2020 election, gave the stock answer. She refuses to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost. In response to this simple question: Did President Trump lose the 2020 election? All she could say was: President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States. This is the standard response from this administration's nominees seeking positions on the Federal bench. It is an embarrassing genuflection before the Big Lie. The question of who won the 2020 election is not a matter of political opinion; it is a matter of historical fact. The overwhelming majority of my Republican colleagues have correctly recognized that reality, and we have a right to expect nominees to acknowledge such historic realities as well. Both President Trump's nominees, including Ms. Hermandorfer, have been afraid to admit he lost the 2020 election. Why are they afraid of it? It is a fact. They are afraid because it will make him angry. He may dump their nominations because of the answer to that question. The fact that she is willing to condone President Trump's false claims further demonstrates a level of partisanship and deference to this President that is unacceptable for someone seeking a lifetime position on the Federal bench. And just in case her political leanings aren't clear enough for the record, Ms. Hermandorfer has strong ties to a range of rightwing organizations. They include the fabled Federalist Society and Teneo Network. Teneo Network is a new conservative group funded by Leonard Leo and his affiliated organizations. You may have heard the name Leonard Leo recently when President Trump called Mr. Leo a ``sleazebag.'' Membership in such organizations has been a litmus test for years for Republican nominees. It is the secret handshake, my friends. If you belong to the Federalist Society or now this Teneo Network, you are in. It means a nominee will use the Republican playbook for deciding important Federal cases. How does it work? You claim to be neutral, but, in fact, you contort history and overturn precedents to reach the Republicans' preferred outcome. Ms. Hermandorfer followed this playbook to a tee in the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. She opposed LGBTQ rights and reproductive rights as well as environmental and anti-discrimination policies to protect the most vulnerable in America. I believe we need judges on the bench who follow the law and the Constitution, not politicians in robes who rule in favor of the President and wealthy special interests. Finally, I would like to note that Ms. Hermandorfer's academic record, although impressive, and legal record, although extreme, is short. She graduated from law school in 2015--has fewer than 10 years of legal experience. Outside of clerkships, she has only practiced law for 6 years, and she is seeking a lifetime appointment to the circuit court--one of the highest in the land. She has never served as sole or chief counsel in any case--any case--tried to verdict, judgment, or final decision. That is a shocking lack of experience for someone nominated for a lifetime position. She will be watching trials for the first time as a judge. But, unfortunately, this kind of inexperience is common with President Trump's judicial nominees. Make no mistake, experience is still important. Robust litigation experience ensures judicial nominees will be equipped to fulfill their duties. As an appellate judge, she is going to be standing in judgment of many trial courts. She has limited experience in that field. Ms. Hermandorfer is the first judicial nominee we have considered this Congress. She won't be the last. In every instance, we must carefully examine the nominee's record as we consider them for a lifetime appointment. After carefully reviewing her record, I have serious concerns. I think my colleagues, if they look at her honestly, will as well. I urge them to join me in opposing her nomination. (Mrs. Britt assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I remember 9/11 very well. I was in this building meeting with Senator Daschle just down the hall, and we heard news that a plane had struck a building in New York. By the time I made it to the meeting, it turned out there was a second plane that had done the same. Madam President, 9/11 was clearly no accident. It was a terrorist act. As a result of that terrorist act, we made decisions as a nation on a bipartisan basis. One of the most bipartisan decisions we made was what to do with those who were responsible--Osama bin Laden and others. There was no doubt in my mind that we had to answer what they did with force--no doubt whatsoever. I am not inclined to that conclusion on an ordinary basis, but I saw no other alternative but to send the world a message that no one could kill so many innocent Americans and not be held personally responsible. So there was a vote on the floor--not for the invasion of Iraq but for the invasion of Afghanistan to go after the terrorists, Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group. I voted for it. Every Senator of both political parties voted for it. The same thing was true in the House with only one exception. It was a decision we made to get involved in Afghanistan. As reluctant as I was to see us get into war, I felt we had no choice--no choice whatsoever than to make that clear. So we went in and engaged in that battle for one of the longest wars in our history. Eventually, under President Obama, we found Osama bin Laden and removed him from this Earth and many of his followers as well. But we paid a price as well. The men and women of the United States stood behind Congress's decision and enlisted in our services and risked their lives in combat in Afghanistan. It was a terrible assignment. They did it honorably. They did it effectively. One of the keys to their success in eliminating Osama bin Laden and many of his followers was the support of some Afghan people who risked their own lives to step up and help American soldiers. Day in and day out, these men and women joined our forces, trying to put an end to the terrorism we knew on 9/11. At the end of the conflict, some of those Afghans who risked their lives to help American soldiers came to the United States, and they were given what is known as temporary protected status, meaning they could stay in this country until the dangers in their home country had abated. TPS is a temporary designation allowing certain foreign nationals from countries experiencing turmoil to remain here without fear of being deported--back to Afghanistan in this case. TPS was first designated for Afghans under the Biden administration in 2022 after we withdrew from Afghanistan, marking the end of America's longest war. For over two decades, tens of thousands of Afghan civilians worked alongside our military and diplomats. Make no mistake, they were risking their lives to help us and faced the possibility of retribution in their own country. I saw firsthand during a visit to Afghanistan some years ago just how these Afghans were making that courageous sacrifice. And the lives of their families, of course, were also in danger because of it. In return, we promised to the Afghans who risked their lives to help our troops that we would keep them safe from retaliation, and we opened our arms to welcome others, some of them fleeing brutal conditions under the Taliban. In fact, Afghanistan today also faces the horrors of an administration that has not delivered for their people: record malnutrition, shortages of basic medicine, horrible repression of women and girls, and instability that threatens the entire region. Listen to this carefully. The State Department--our State Department--has put out a notice that Americans should not travel to Afghanistan because it is too dangerous. So why, why are we facing the situation where this Trump administration is going to eliminate temporary protected status for the Afghans in the United States, including those who risked their lives to help our troops? Why would we send them back to a country so dangerous we warn Americans not to visit? We are also planning on closing, according to President Trump, the very office at the Department of State that protects these vulnerable Afghans here in the United States. Now, with the lifting of this TPS designation, these Afghans already legally in the United States--including some who risked their lives to help us--may face detention and deportation, returning to horrific conditions in their homeland. I urge the President in the strongest terms to reconsider this. It is not just the fate of these Afghans, but it is the reputation of the United States. God forbid we are ever in another conflict in some country and turn to the local population to stand by us and risk their lives to help us and when they agree, turn our backs on them again. That is not what a great nation does. I think most Americans feel particularly that Afghans who risked their lives to help our troops deserve better than to be forced to return to the danger of Afghanistan. This decision is a sad one for America. I think we are better than this. I am sorry the Afghans who risked their lives to help our troops are now being abandoned by the Trump administration. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks to the Senate Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges until July 31, 2025: Isabella Jackson-Saitz, Dakota Willenbrock, Benjamin Bui, and Elizabeth Schluter.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me begin by joining the Senator from Alabama expressing my concern with her with what happened in Texas Hill Country, the flooding over the weekend. It was a sad chapter in our Nation's history and a tragic chapter in the history of these families. Our hearts and prayers are with them.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, summer camp is a great memory for so many of us. You think about the good times we had, at the right moment in life, with a lot of friends, learning the basics of swimming, archery, target shooting, and other things, like camping out--memories you carry for a lifetime, wonderful memories, a rite of passage for many individuals and families, a family tradition passed on to younger siblings and, ultimately, to our own children and grandchildren. There are so many images in our minds, over the last several days, as to the tragedy that occurred in Central Texas. I know I speak for millions of Americans when I say we are heartbroken over the flash floods that devastated Central Texas this past weekend. Early Friday morning, while most were fast asleep, a foot of rain fell onto Texas Hill Country. This deluge floated to the Guadalupe River, causing it to rise by 26 feet in 45 minutes--26 feet in 45 minutes. Near the Guadalupe, a girls sleep away camp, Camp Mystic, which had been there for 99 years, was all but destroyed by the floods. Already, that camp has confirmed that 27 of their campers and counselors died in that flood--27. I send my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those campers and counselors. Tragically, the flooding in Texas continues to take lives. More than 100 people have perished. That number is expected to grow, sadly, in the coming days. In the midst of this disaster, I am heartened by the kindness and courage shown by the first responders and volunteers. Twenty separate agencies, at every level of government, have come together to help save lives. At Camp Mystic, the counselors, many of whom had just graduated from high school, risked their own lives to save younger campers. We will never forget that bravery. This disaster has impacted people of both political faiths-- Republicans and Democrats--and Independents as well. I want to say this, and I say this on reflection of my career in the House and the Senate: I have never, to my knowledge--never--voted against disaster assistance for people in other States than my home State of Illinois. There, but for the grace of God, go my people that I represent. And I would hope that the Senate and the House would stand together, Democrats and Republicans, and say we are going to be there for the victims of this disaster. I pray that we find the missing loved ones and that we take the necessary steps to stop another tragedy like this from occurring.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this weekend, across the country, we observed our Nation's 249th Independence Day, a day intended to celebrate a government of, by, and for the people, in Lincoln's words. But this Independence Day was anything but a celebration in one respect, and that is because, this Fourth of July, the President and congressional Republicans decided to sign their so-called Big Beautiful Bill, and in so doing, they retreated from the values that our Founders etched in the Declaration, ``that all Men are created equal,'' not just the wealthy and well-connected. Americans across this Nation overwhelmingly oppose this bill--and for good reason. You see, this bill signed by the President on the Fourth of July is the largest cut in healthcare and the largest cut in nutrition assistance in history, slashing more than $1 trillion from healthcare programs like Medicaid and $200 billion from the SNAP program. Seventeen million Americans will lose their health insurance. Health insurance premiums will rise for another 20 million Americans. Three million people will have food taken off the table, including kids, seniors, and veterans. I can't understand the celebration of the facts that I have just read. I have heard misstatements. One misstatement was: Don't worry. The people we take off Medicaid will be the illegal immigrants. They are not eligible for Medicaid, and they are certainly not in that calculation of 17 million Americans. Why do we do these things? Why would any government do these things to so many innocent people? In this case, very simply, it is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations. The richest Americans will be seeing $400,000 more in tax cuts in their pockets every year because of this legislation. I don't know how their lifestyle--if you are a millionaire or something like that and you get a tax break of $400,000, what does that money do to change your life? Well, I can tell you this: One thing that will change your life forever is to face a dramatic medical challenge in your family and not have health insurance to cover you. I have been there, and I have lived through that. It is something you never wish on anyone. And yet 17 million Americans, unfortunately, will lose their health insurance under this bill, the Big Beautiful Bill, signed by President Trump. Despite a last-ditch effort--there was a failing attempt at buying votes and pretending to care about rural areas, like my area of Downstate Illinois--more than 300 rural hospitals and 500 nursing homes may be forced to close because of these cutbacks in Medicaid. That is because this Big Beautiful Bill cripples the Medicaid Program that keeps our rural hospitals and communities afloat. That includes HSHS St. Francis Hospital in Litchfield, IL, where Medicaid pays for 53 percent of the hospitalization; St. Mary's Hospital in Centralia, IL, where Medicaid pays for 42 percent of hospitalizations; and OSF St. Clare Hospital in Princeton, IL, where Medicaid covers 45 percent of the hospitalizations. The administrators in these hospitals have warned us that this could be the breaking point. Many of these hospitals barely survive, barely keep their doors open. Now, all of these hospitals--already operating on the margins--may face impossible decisions to scale back services. For what? To pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. Aside from hospitals, there is also going to be a major consequence on American energy. I commend to my colleagues and those who are following this debate, in today's New York Times, an article by Thomas Friedman. He talks about the impact on energy from the decisions made by the signing of this bill. This bill kills solar, wind, and EV tax credits enjoyed by companies and consumers alike, all but ceding the future of electricity to China and risking billions of dollars of investments in renewable energy-- ironically, mostly in Republican States. While working families grapple with the consequences of these cuts, they are going to see the family home expenses increase by $1,000 a year. Utility bills are going up because of this bill--this bill signed by the President, the Big Beautiful Bill. The Chicago Tribune recently shared a story of Isaiah Rogers, a 61- year-old man who lives in the West Pullman neighborhood in Chicago. Several years ago, Isaiah was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. As a result of this diagnosis, he has not been able to return to his job, trimming trees, and has been working small side jobs. Medicaid pays for Isaiah's doctor visits and his insulin. A single father without a high school degree, Isaiah is concerned that the bill's cuts and changes to Medicaid will result in his losing his health coverage. And if Isaiah loses Medicaid, he will no longer be able to afford his insulin and other medications. He may face a diabetic complication or coma or even suffer a stroke. What will that mean to his 12-year-old son? It is unconscionable to think that the other party would pull the plug on lifesaving health coverage and deny food to our most needy children, but that is exactly what they voted for and celebrated on July 4. As Republicans moved this megabill through Congress, Democrats did our best, in the minority, to push back. Over the course of 27 hours, Senate Democrats forced votes on many amendments to put Republicans on notice and show their constituents what their real positions are on issues. It was the longest vote-arama in the history of the Senate. It included putting Republicans on the record, voting against nursing home care, home healthcare, food assistance for children of veterans, protections for Medicaid, clean energy jobs--and the list goes on. And an expansion of the child tax credit, an idea that has proven successful--all that was sacrificed to give billionaires tax cuts instead. In the end, three sensible Senate Republicans looked at this ugly betrayal of a bill and agreed they couldn't be part of the process. I commend them. But, sadly, three votes on the other side of the aisle wasn't enough. We needed one more. And who swooped in to cast his vote--the decisive vote? Vice President Vance. He showed up at the last minute and cast a tie- breaking vote in the Senate to push the bill across the finish line. A few short years ago, then-Vice President Harris broke a tie in this very Chamber to pass the largest climate investment bill in history and to lower prescription drug prices for millions of Americans--what a sharp contrast. This Vice President cast a deciding vote that will be painful for so many families across America, and he could have done so much more and so much better for the people of this Nation. That is the difference in priorities. In politics, it basically boils down to: Whose side are you on? As the effects of this bill take shape and slither their way through our communities, our Republican colleagues will have to look their constituents in the eyes and explain their votes. They will have to explain to a farmer who now must drive an additional 50 miles to the nearest hospital why they had to shut the community hospital doors. They will have to explain to the grandmother at a nursing home why her care is being slimmed down or eliminated because of cutbacks to Medicaid. They will have to explain to the young mother preparing to have a baby why there is no longer a maternity ward in her county. This bill flies in the face of American values that we celebrate on the Fourth of July and everything we stand for. The other party has a lot of explaining to do, and the American people are going to face the consequences. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico and Senator Peter Welch of Vermont support the motion to commit bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and eliminate provisions that would cut Medicaid payments to rural hospitals in Maine, Alaska, Missouri, Kansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, or West Virginia and ensure big corporations and the ultrawealthy pay a fair share in taxes. Senator Lujan and Senator Welch know the existing challenges rural hospitals face and understand the profound harm that this Republican tax scheme will have on our Nation's rural hospitals. I hope my Senate Republican colleagues join us in standing up for the hospitals in their States that would suffer under this Republican legislation.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, it is my intention to make the following motions to commit to the bill: (1) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Armed Services 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) restore funding for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense to an amount equal to not less than five percent real growth annually over the fiscal year 2024 level through fiscal year 2029. (2) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Armed Services 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) insert after section 20011 a new section appropriating not less than $300,000,000 for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative by using cost savings associated with a prohibition on the procurement, modification, restoration, or maintenance of an aircraft previously owned by a foreign government, an entity controlled by a foreign government, or a representative of a foreign government for the purposes of providing presidential airlift options. (3) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance 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) strike provisions that would reduce funding that supports biomedical research into cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Alzheimer's disease, congenital heart defects, and other critical conditions. (4) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance 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; (2) would eliminate provisions that cut Medicaid payments rural hospitals in Maine, Alaska, Missouri, Kansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, or West Virginia need to stay open; and (3) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a fair share in taxes. (5) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on the Judiciary 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; (2) increase funding to ensure personnel at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are addressing the creation and distribution of child sexual abuse material, the fentanyl crisis, violent crime, political violence, and terrorism; and (3) restrict the funds described in paragraph (2) from being used for mass deportations. (6) A motion to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee on the Judiciary 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) ensure that grant programs that fund victim service providers or provide support or compensation to victims of crime remain accessible or uninterrupted, and that any such programs subject to administrative funding freezes or terminations are restored.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are here today debating a clumsily assembled package--still a work in progress--that would rip away healthcare from 16 million American families, give tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires, and the largest corporations. Think about that for a moment. Republicans have decided that the best avenue to generate revenue that they can then give in tax breaks to wealthy people is to eliminate health insurance coverage for 16 million Americans. That is going to have a dramatic impact on their lives. If you have ever been a young father with a baby with a serious medical problem, and you had no health insurance, you will never forget it as long as you live. I know; I have been there. The notion of losing your health insurance leaves you as vulnerable as possible in some of the most important moments of your life. The day we consider this provision to eliminate health insurance coverage for 16 million families is unimaginable and cruel. Let's not act like there is a unified Republican front on this issue. Even some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to be here at this moment, jamming this unpopular bill through this Chamber under arbitrary deadlines. One of my colleagues took a look at tax breaks. You will hear them say over and over again: If we don't act, the average family has to pay more in taxes. There is a way around that. If we limit any tax breaks in this bill in this effort to people making $400,000 a year or less-- $400,000 a year or less--it virtually eliminates two-thirds of the cost of this undertaking, and it means you don't have to take away the health insurance of 16 million families. So there are ways to do tax breaks which make sense. Count this Democrat in with the Republicans for helping working families who are struggling to get by, and a lot of them are living paycheck to paycheck. The notion that we would say to them: We are going to take away your health insurance; we are going to raise the cost of health insurance for you, that is no answer to their problems. Behind closed doors, my Republican colleagues continue to be consumed with infighting, bickering over the bill's substance, and for good reason. We have a process here which is almost impossible to explain to an ordinary person of how we reach reconciliation. The Parliamentarian's office--she is sitting here--and God bless you for what you have been through the last several months and all your staff--have to make decisions on a daily basis, over and over again, as to whether or not provisions in this bill are eligible under the law that governs the U.S. Senate. We are in the process of debating this on the Senate floor. I see our ranking member on the Budget Committee--the Senate Budget Committee-- the Senator from Oregon. We are in the process of still appealing to the Parliamentarian's office on provisions in the bill. This is truly a work in progress. I think what they do know is troubling, and it should be. This bill would be a disaster for hospitals. The Senate Republican bill, unfortunately, is going to endanger hospitals all over the United States. But if you happen to live in a small town, rural area--and I represent a lot of them in the State of Illinois--you are the most vulnerable. You are the target. When they cut back on Medicaid Programs, these are the hospitals that will close their doors. What is the impact of a hospital closing its door in a downstate community in Illinois? Devastating. Hospitals are not only the center for emergency medical care, good doctors, nurses, and such, they are also a major economic force in smalltown America. Take away a hospital and then try to attract a new business to your community--good luck. This Senate bill cripples one of the main ways the States fund their Medicaid Programs and keep hospitals afloat, especially rural and low- income areas. It is called the provider tax. Earlier this week, a Republican Senator--a Republican Senator--circulated a flyer to his fellow caucus Members so they are all on notice detailing just how much each State will lose in Medicaid provider tax funding under the proposal. Let's take a look at my neck of the woods, the Midwest. Iowa would lose $4.1 billion; Missouri, $6.1 billion; Kentucky, $12 million; Louisiana would lose $20 billion; North Carolina, $38.9 billion. Senator Tillis and I were in a conversation yesterday, and he used that very same figure. His analysis says if we go forward with this bill, it cuts Medicaid reimbursement in his home State of North Carolina by a whopping $38.9 billion. This list of States and what they will lose was passed around by a Republican Senator to his own caucus. They know what they are up against here. If Republicans have their way and pass this bill, hospitals will be forced to shrink or eliminate services. In Decatur, IL, one of the hospitals facing a crunch time had to make a decision whether to keep their doors open. They did, but they eliminated OB-GYN delivering babies and all mental health and addiction counseling--two critical areas for the hospitals. So this bill will force hospitals to shrink or eliminate services. Doctors and nurses will leave and, in some cases, the hospital will close. Imagine in a rural area or remote area, an extra 45 minutes, an extra hour in the car with somebody in the front seat you love very much who is in a desperate situation. As it stands today, half of the rural hospitals around the country already operate in the danger zone, and it is the same thing for children's hospitals. If you have one in your community you use--I do. These children's hospitals have warned us they can't keep their doors open if Medicaid is cut as dramatically as the Republicans want to cut it. If Republicans have their way, we are going to see massive layoffs, fewer nurses, technicians, and doctors, along with decreasing quality of care. The American Hospital Association has estimated how these cuts to Medicaid could impact not just jobs in red State hospitals but across the entire economy. Here is what they found. If the Republican provision goes through that cuts Medicaid reimbursement in order to provide tax breaks for wealthy people--Maine is an example of one State. They would lose 5,000 jobs; Kansas, 6,200 jobs; Iowa, 11,000 jobs; Missouri, 26,600 jobs. I have talked to the administrator of BJC in St. Louis, MO. The reason is, it is not just a Missouri hospital. They have facilities on the Illinois side of the river. In fact, one- third of their patients are from Illinois, and one-third of their patients, overall, use Medicaid to run their hospital. He has told me what is going to happen if the Republican measure goes through and cutbacks to these hospitals. They came up with, incidentally, the rescue fund to solve the political problem. I want to check and make sure Senator Murray can back me up on this. Our overall cut in Medicaid now is about $1 trillion?