Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a visual aid.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, families lose, billionaires win. That is the Republican plan. The Republican plan slashes $2 trillion for the programs families depend on to thrive in order to give more tax giveaways to the very richest Americans. Families lose--$2 trillion in core programs slashed--to deliver another $2 trillion to the richest Americans. That is a terrible plan. How about families thrive? How about billionaires pay their fair share? Now, there is a good plan we ought to be all able to get behind. But there is even more that is wrong with this Republican plan. We found out yesterday a new estimate of the cost of their plan in new debt over the next 10 years: $7 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t,'' trillion dollars--of unpaid-for tax cuts with most of it going to the richest Americans. But there is even more bad news because they want to extend that deficit, debt-creating machine into the future, and CBO tells us that that will cost $37 trillion, at a minimum, in new debt--$37 trillion. Well, that is awfully hard to get your hands around, $37 trillion in new debt. But there is even more bad news. They want to tell the American public their plan produces no new debt. They have this new version of the world in which they simply wave away the debt and say, ``pretend it didn't exist.'' It is called magic math. And it works like this: You sign a lease for a house. You are going to rent a house for a year. It costs $2,000 a month. It costs $24,000 a year. And at the end of the lease, you decide to renew it, but you tell your spouse: Hey, honey, it doesn't cost an additional dime. Well, that is what my Republican colleagues are doing. They are establishing, not just new tax giveaways, but they are extending, creating law that renews the lease on old giveaways, which will cost that additional $37 trillion, and then saying: Don't worry, honey, it won't cost a dime. Are the American people so out of touch that they can't detect the lie in that? I don't think so. And are my Republican colleagues so out of touch that they really want to try to deceive the American people in this manner? I don't think so. So colleagues across the aisle, let's have integrity in what this plan will do and at least be honest about what we tell the American people. The American people don't want the smoke and mirrors. They don't want the magic math gimmick. They want honesty about what this bill will do and what it will cost--what it will cost in terms of programs, what it will cost in terms of changes in tax law. You know, folks back home, they say: Billionaires? They can take care of themselves. Just what they earn on their existing investments is enough to float a family on the yacht for the rest of eternity. Why are we doing a bill that takes away from core healthcare, housing, and education programs for families to add more wealth to the billionaires? With this one bill alone, Republicans are giving 22 trillion to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, while the bottom 10 percent get enough to buy a cup of coffee. Here is a cup of coffee. Well, there is no coffee in it. But think of this as a cup of coffee. Now, does the Republican plan for that bottom 40 percent--does it pay for a cup of coffee a day? No. A cup of coffee a week? No. A cup of coffee a month? No. You get one cup of coffee for the entire year--$6. That is the estimate of what the bottom 40 percent get with the Republican plan--one cup of coffee for the entire year. So to the 40 percent of Americans who are striving to get on their feet, this is what the Republican proposal is for you. While they are giving the top 0.1 percent over $300,000 a year a person, they are giving you one cup of coffee. Don't drink it all in one place. Take a little sip each day of the year because that is all you get. Our plan is different. Democrats are fighting for families. We are fighting for healthcare, for Medicaid. We are fighting for healthcare because it is a foundation on which families thrive. We are fighting for education because it is a foundation on which families thrive. We are fighting for housing--affordable housing--because it is a foundation for families to thrive. That is the plan: Families thrive, and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes. How did we get to this point? Let's turn the clock back to 1974. Let's go through a little time machine, back to 1974. At that point, Democrats and Republicans came together and established a new budget process, called the Budget and Impoundment Control Act, because they were so concerned about deficits and concerned about President Nixon impounding funds. So they said: We have to rectify these soaring deficits. And so they said, three things--three pillars: Well, first we will create a fast track--a fast track--a filibuster-free pathway to reduced deficits. And even Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the national defender of the filibuster, agreed. All 100 Senators voted for this bill--one purpose, decrease deficits. And that plan had these three pillars: First, deficit reduction in the first 10 years--that was the core vote. Second of all, no increase--no provision can create an increase in a deficit in any given year after the first 10 years. And, third, we are going to use honest numbers--no more smoke and mirrors, no more gimmicks, no more trying to deceive the public, saying we have a responsible plan when it is creating massive additional debt. Well, that plan--that 1974 plan--worked for 22 years. And along comes 1996. And in 1996, my Republican colleagues wanted to do a tax plan that involved huge giveaways to the wealthiest Americans, and they said: But we can't get 60 votes. We need Democratic help. We can't get that to the floor. And they said: OK, let's do a nuclear option. Let's reinterpret that first pillar--must reduce deficits in the first 10 years--and say it can increase deficits. In this very Chamber right here, it happened. The former Republican leader, Robert Dole, appointed his staff member Robert Dove to be Parliamentarian, and they reversed the plain language of the law in order to blow up deficits with tax giveaways to the wealthy. Now, it turned out, that year, they didn't end up using that nuclear provision because they struck a different deal with President Clinton. But they did use it in 2001 and 2003. They did use it in 2017--all for massive tax cuts, the majority going to the richest Americans. So this plan--this Republican plan--it isn't new. This plan has been the core strategy since 1996: Run up debt and give massive amounts of money to the richest Americans. It is very disturbing to me--very disturbing to every American who sees that all we are doing under the Republican vision is increasing wealth inequality, undermining the programs for families to stand on to thrive, and proceeding to enrich the richest people in our Nation. You know, back in 1974, when Democrats and Republicans together crafted this plan, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 23 percent. Today, it is 100 percent. Our national debt is equal or slightly above our national gross domestic product. In 1974, the annual deficit was $6 billion. Today, it is about $2 trillion. In 1974, the total national debt was $475 billion. It seemed like a lot at the time. Now it is $37 trillion or just shy of $37 trillion. But while running on fiscal responsibility since 1996, the Republican Party has been the party of fiscal irresponsibility, changing the Senate rules to run up deficits and debt, giving away the Treasury to the richest Americans, and imposing that massive debt on the families in the future. It is hard to get your hands around what their $37 trillion debt plan means, but think about it like this: Since Independence Day, July 4, 1776, we have run up less than $37 trillion in debt, and they want to add $37 trillion or more in debt with this single bill. Wow, that is something. You know, Candidate Trump said he would be a champion for families, but President Trump is a champion for billionaires. This is the great betrayal. In February, Democrats voted for amendment after amendment to help families, and my colleagues across the aisle voted, almost in every case unanimously, against those amendments to help families. Democrats voted for an amendment to make sure Medicaid was protected; Republicans voted against it. Democrats voted for an amendment to lower the cost of groceries; Republicans voted against it. Democrats voted to lower the cost of housing, and Republicans voted against it. Democrats voted to lower the cost of prescription drugs; Republicans voted against it. Democrats voted to lower the cost of health insurance; Republicans voted against it. Democrats put forward amendments for families to thrive and for the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, and Republicans voted against them because that is not their plan. It hasn't been their plan since 1996. Their plan has been: Families lose, and billionaires win. If this budget proposal--this vision for the reconciliation bill that will be subsequently crafted--doesn't help families, who does it help? Well, let's look at who was lined up behind Trump at his inaugural address just down the hall, done inside because the weather was so cold. Well, whom did we have? We had Mark Zuckerberg standing behind the President, the billionaire of Meta, who owns Facebook, who gave a million dollars to Trump's inauguration fund. We had Jeff Bezos, the billionaire of Amazon, who gave a million dollars to Trump's inauguration fund. We had Sundar Pichai, the billionaire of Alphabet, which owns Google, who gave a million dollars to Trump's inauguration funds. Billionaires lined up behind him, but not just those three, also the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of Tesla and SpaceX and Starlink and now, infamously, the name behind DOGE, who spent more than a quarter billion dollars to elect Trump and my Republican colleagues. And those are just the contributions we know about. We don't know about all the dark money they may have spent. Slashing programs families rely on to give trillions of dollars to the richest Americans, that is the Republican plan--billionaires who don't care if we slash Medicaid. They don't care if grocery prices go up. They don't care about the cost of housing or prescription drug prices or health insurance because they are billionaires. What costs to us a month's salary for them is a 1-second blip in their financial landscape. You know, Donald Trump said about the 25 percent tariffs on cars: I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less if [automakers] raise their prices. Well, you know who does care? American families. American families care because a car is a significant part of their budget. And they do care about the health insurance. They care about the groceries. They care about the rent or the interest rate that drives their mortgage. You know, there aren't so many billionaires in America. What is the point to help a very small group of the richest get even richer? Well, that is a longer story about how money pollutes our political process. But here on the floor, where we can argue the pros and cons of policies, let's at least use honest numbers, not replace the CBO numbers with some fake numbers, not use magic math. We are here, Democrats on the floor, to expose this fraud. We are here to stop this fraud. We are here to fight for America's families. We are here to stop this budget resolution and this subsequent reconciliation bill in which families lose and billionaires win because we want families to thrive and billionaires to pay their fair share. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, what we don't like is $37 trillion in new debt hoisted on the next generation. This is throwing fiscal responsibility overboard to the bottom of the sea. We have never had a more fiscally irresponsible bill on the floor of the Senate than this one. Vote on Amendment No. 1758

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, throughout these 25 hours of debate, there has been one theme that no Member of this body should forget, that no American should forget because it is the heart of this bill. And what is the heart of the bill? Families lose, and billionaires win. This bill features $2 trillion in cuts to core programs in healthcare, housing, and education--the programs that help families stand on their feet and thrive and move into the middle class and succeed and their children succeed and the next generation. But, no, my Republican colleagues say: Slash those programs because they are not the folks who power our campaigns. We don't care about the families struggling to succeed. Well, no, what we care about are the billionaires, so we wrote this bill for billionaires. Just how much? Well, that $2 trillion funds tax breaks for the richest Americans. And then because that is not enough, this bill borrows $37 trillion over 30 years to fund additional tax breaks--$37 trillion in debt. Cuts to programs for families to fund tax giveaways to the richest Americans--that is what this is about. If you care about healthcare across America, if you know that Medicaid provides--well, in my State, about a third of our citizens have health insurance through Medicaid. Our rural clinics and our rural hospitals do far better. And why do they do far better with Medicaid? Because patients can pay bills because they have health insurance. Medicaid is critical for programs for people to get out of their addiction. Medicaid is critical for seniors to be able to get nursing home care. Medicaid is essential for those with disabilities. It plays a huge role for our veterans. And they want to strike it down. They want to strike down Social Security, get rid of all the clerks that make Social Security work, that turn the gears and make sure the checks go out on time, because why should we worry about Social Security? Billionaires don't need Social Security. Strike out the lunch programs for schools. We know that kids learn far better when they have a full stomach. So programs like that matter, but not to the billionaires, not in this bill. Mr. President, $2 trillion in cuts for programs families depend on to fund massive tax giveaways to the richest Americans. Then, on top of all that, a gimmick--a gimmick to say to the American people: While we are adding $37 trillion in debt, we will tell you we are adding nothing. It is called current policy baseline. It is magic math. It is like this: You rent an apartment. The apartment costs you $2,000 a month, $24,000 for the year. You rent it for a year under contract. Then you get to the end of the year and you say: I think I will sign a contract for a second year. You say: Oh, but that will cost nothing. That is the magic math, when we know--everyone knows--it will still cost $2,000 a month or more with inflation, more because the rent might go up. But the magic math from the Republican side says: No, no; it is zero. It is zero. Extending new tax benefits that would have expired costs $37 trillion, and Republicans say: Just pretend it away. Now, what I would like to understand is why the party that has often run on fiscal responsibility has decided, first of all, to strike down the nonpartisan numbers that create an honest debate. That has been the rule, the direction, the bipartisan consensus since 1974. We will use honest numbers. We created a whole organization--the Congressional Budget Office--to make sure the numbers were fair so we could have an honest debate here and with the American people. But the magic math produced on this bill throws all that overboard. Fiscal responsibility overboard. Massive $37 trillion in new debt from this bill. Do you know what? Our entire national debt today is less than $37 trillion. This one bill--this one bill--produces even more debt than has been piled up over the 249 years since the Declaration of Independence. If that isn't fiscally irresponsible, I don't know what is. You know, you may ask: Don't those folks who are struggling--the 1 out of 10 who are really trying to get on their feet--isn't there something for them? Well, the estimate is that they get the equivalent of $6 a year. Well, if you have a fancy cup of coffee at Starbucks--not where I go for coffee, but many do--it costs about $6. This bill doesn't give a cup of coffee a day to the bottom 10 percent. It doesn't give a cup of coffee a week to the bottom 10 percent. It gives one cup per year. That is what you get out of this bill if you are in the bottom 10 percent, struggling to get on your feet. Don't drink it all at once, just one little sip each day for 365 days because you in the bottom 10 percent are not a billionaire. Going to cut your programs that get you on your feet--the fundamentals for families to thrive in healthcare and housing and education and good-paying jobs--to enrich the richest Americans. This is perhaps the worst bill I have ever seen debated on the floor of the Senate. So, colleagues across the aisle, turn back to your speeches and your election campaigns that said ``I am for fiscal responsibility,'' and come and join us and write a real bill in which families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes. That would be an advance for the United States of America. That would be good work on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it has been asserted this week that under section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act, the chair of the Budget Committee has the authority to instruct the Congressional Budget Office, known as CBO, and the Joint Committee on Taxation, known as JCT, to ignore budget law when developing cost estimates for legislation, including budget reconciliation bills. It has further been asserted these directed estimates are appropriate to use for budget enforcement purposes claiming that past Budget chairs have taken similar actions. This is false. I would like to put some facts into the record. Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act defines how CBO and JCT should construct the baseline. This is called the current law baseline. This act does not defer to some unlimited authority of the Budget chair, provide for multiple or competing baselines, or say the current law baseline should not be used for scoring reconciliation bills. For 40 years, Congress has used cost estimates based on section 257 of this act. Codifying the baseline established a standard budget enforcement regime, ensuring that CBO and the Office of Management and Budget use the same baseline definition when developing their respective economic forecasts and budget projections. There are some very specific instances when section 257 directs CBO to consult with the Budget Committees to determine whether a proposed law should continue in the baseline. Importantly, these instances are enumerated, and they do not apply to revenue provisions-which are treated as expiring as written in law. The section 257 current law baseline has applied to all reconciliation bills since its enactment. Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act--colloquially referred to as the Byrd Rule--is also in statute. The Byrd Rule provides strict guardrails on what is, or is not, appropriate for inclusion in a reconciliation bill. During adoption of the Byrd Rule in 1985, floor debate indicates it was understood that the Parliamentarian would advise on Byrd Rule violations, and the Senate would vote accordingly; a role for the Budget chair was not mentioned, even by the author and namesake of these constraints--Senator Robert C. Byrd. Since the Byrd Rule's adoption, it has been long-accepted practice-- accepted by both sides of the aisle--to rely on the Parliamentarian to advise the chair on reconciliation privilege and enforcement issues, including evaluating compliance with Byrd Rule tests that all hinge on the scores of the provisions. Section 312 authority has never been asserted to allow the Budget chair to dictate scores to enforce or manipulate the Byrd Rule. The Senate has always relied exclusively on CBO and JCT scores when evaluating the Byrd Rule, and CBO and JCT have always relied on the section 257 current law baseline to produce those scores. Reconciliation is one of the Senate's few privileged, fast-track mechanisms for passing legislation, particularly legislation of substantial size and scope. The Budget Act grants the Senate this targeted exception from its standard of open debate and cloture protections with an expectation that there will be limitations. The inappropriate assertion that broad authority under section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act allows a Budget chair to ignore budget law, upend multiple layers of procedure, and undermine the Parliamentarian's role, is a clear violation of the Byrd Rule and the Senate precedent around reconciliation limits.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1758 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleagues, my good friend from South Carolina compared this bill with balancing the family budget. Well back in my neighborhood, balancing the budget means you only spend what you earn. It doesn't mean borrowing, and it doesn't mean borrowing $37 trillion and sticking it to the next generation. If you agree that we should work toward balancing our budget, then vote for my amendment. It creates a point of order for any reconciliation bill that by itself would create more debt on America, on the next generation than all the debt our Nation has run up between July 4, 1776, and today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my interns be granted floor privileges on their shadow days for the following dates: Michael O'Rourke on April 8, 2025, Ji Reichle on April 9, Lainey Chi on April 10, Langston Phan on April 29, Kaylee Lawson on May 1.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chance Mitchell be granted floor privileges during consideration of H. Con. Res. 14.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, families lose, and billionaires win. That is the Republican plan. It is a plan that slashes $1.5 to $2 trillion from programs that families depend on. And why? To fund tax cuts for the very richest Americans. But that is not all the bad news because there are additional tax cuts for the best and richest in the country--the richest Americans-- and those are unpaid for, and that means debt. How much more debt does this bill create? The current estimate--and the estimates keep going up--is $5.3 trillion of unpaid-for tax cuts over the next 10 years--$5.3 trillion--trillion with a ``t''--over the next 10 years. But that is not all. Their plan provides for $37 trillion--at least $37 trillion--in additional debt over the next 30 years. This is a phenomenal, phenomenal number. And, third, they say: We will tell the American people it adds no new debt; passing this bill adds no new debt. That is quite a set of plans: slash programs for regular Americans, enrich the richest Americans, run up an additional $37 trillion in debt, and then lie to the American people and say it doesn't cost a thing. It has become clear, over the last 2 days, about how Republicans are going to justify this. They say they are going to use section 312-- section 312--of the law. Section 312, they say, says that the cost of a program or the impact of a revenue cut through a tax giveaway to the wealthy only costs what the budget chair says it costs. Just take the chair's word for it. This is the magic wand. It will add $37 trillion to the debt, but if the budget chair says it doesn't, then you just pretend it doesn't. It is kind of like the situation where the king wears the magic robes--at least he thinks he is wearing magic robes, but he is actually walking down the street naked because he doesn't have magic robes--in this case, again, lying to the public about the cost. In the real world, you have real math. In this special new world under the Republican plan, you have the magic math. This was not the vision that was laid out back 51 years ago, in 1974, when the Senate created, along with the House, the Budget and Impoundment Control Act. That act had three pillars. The first pillar was that in a 10-year period, you have to decrease the deficit with the provisions that were in the bill. And then, every year after, in every category, it either has to be deficit-neutral or reduce the deficit according to the provisions that are in the bill. Then it said we are going to use honest numbers. Before, there had been a lot of smoke and mirrors. There had been a lot of gimmicks. And people on both sides said: No, no, we don't want to do that. Democrats and Republicans said: Let's use honest numbers. Let's create a Congressional Budget Office to give us impartial numbers so we can be honest among ourselves, have a real debate about any given policy provision or any particular revenue provision, and we can be honest with the American people because, otherwise, we will just keep running up more and more deficits while pretending we are not. My Republican colleagues initially said: Do you know what? We will just put a clause into the budget resolution. It is called a scoring rule, and that scoring rule will simply say that we are going to say this costs nothing, that there is no additional debt. A scoring rule has been used in the past. OK, it has been used in multiple years, but it was used to resolve little anomalies in tricky, little twists and changes in revenue bills or in policies' programs. It was always narrow. It always was honest about what it was trying to solve and explainable to the public. It was always consistent with the law, and it was always involving modest sums--modest by standards of the national budget. Certainly, now, this scoring rule that had been proposed by the Republicans, it was not bipartisan. It was not narrow. It was not improving the budget. It, in fact, was lying about the budgeting. It was not consistent with the law. And it was massive--$37 trillion. So my colleagues across the aisle, when we pointed this out, they said: Yes, we had better not do that. That is just wrong. OK. Thank you. Thank you for deciding not to put in a scoring rule that was completely wrong and designed to destroy the budget process. But now my colleagues across the aisle have said: We will use a different provision called section 312. We won't use the scoring rule. Instead, we are going to go in a different direction that says simply that the cost is what the chair of the Budget Committee says it is. Now, I want to turn back the clock a little bit. I want to turn back the clock and point out that there were core principles in that 1974 bill, and they were driven by growing bipartisan concern about deficits and debt. In the 1958 to 1968 decade, the average deficit was about $5 billion per year. That doesn't sound like much now, by our standards, when we are looking at $2 trillion per year, but it was a lot compared to the past. And folks said: Do you know what? That $5 billion per year over that 10 years exploded to an average of $20 billion a year in 1971 through 1973. Oh, my goodness, it quadrupled. We have got to get a handle on these deficits. We don't want to run up the debt--this fourfold increase in annual deficits adding to the debt. So Democrats and Republicans came together, and they passed the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act. It created a superhighway for this special effort to reduce deficits--a superhighway; a super, filibuster- free highway. Now, you all may remember Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Robert Byrd was always the fiercest defender of the filibuster. But he, along with 99 other Senators, said: We will create one exception, and that exception will be to reduce the deficit. And it had these three pillars, which I will mention again. It has to reduce the deficit. The provisions of the bill have to reduce the deficit over the first 10 years. They have to be deficit-neutral in every category in each year after the first 10 years. And we have to use honest numbers. And to have those honest numbers, we will create the Congressional Budget Office, an impartial body. We will no longer use smoke and mirrors, pretend that things don't cost money when they do cost money. But then what happened? I will tell you. For 22 years, it worked pretty well. Then along comes the Gingrich revolution, the 1994 election. Now we have the 1995 through 1997 biennium. Some things happened then that, well, one maybe couldn't have foreseen. Maybe they could have. There was an effort to do a balanced budget amendment. It fell one vote short here in the Senate Chamber. It needed 67 votes; it only got 66. Then there was: We will do a line-item veto--and that was passed. But that gave the power to the President to strike down any line. The Supreme Court said: No, you can't do that. You can't delegate the power of the purse. The power of the purse belongs with Congress. So that fell. Then the Republican caucus in charge said: We are going to, instead, do a big tax bill giving enormous benefits to the richest Americans. Then they said: You know, the problem with that is the Democrats won't work with us. They won't give us 60 votes to do that. Oh, I know, they said, we will do a nuclear option. We will repurpose the deficit- decreasing bill from 1974 and say that it can be used in order to actually increase deficits with tax cuts. And they succeeded. They had the votes. They repurposed the bill. They blew up the first pillar of those three pillars. That first pillar was the reconciliation process, this special process created in 1974 that can only be used to reduce deficits in the first 10 years. They blew it up and said: OK. Nuclear option. We have reinterpreted the rule. It can be used to increase deficits. Well, that was a huge, huge damage to the goal of reducing deficits, and deficits have gone up ever since. When that happened--when that happened--there was a big protest on the floor. The first Budget Committee chair who passed the reconciliation bill consistent with decreasing deficits was South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings. He said: The whole idea of reconciliation--and I am giving you firsthand history: It is honest as the day is long--was to, by gosh, to cut back on the deficit. That is what it was for. So the Republicans blew up that pillar, all designed to reduce the deficits, and, instead, repurposed it for increasing the deficits. Pillar No. 1 drops. But, at the same time, the second pillar, that no increase in deficits could occur after 10 years, was sustained by the Chair sitting and presiding over the Senate, and that was Senator Daschle. Senator Daschle said--well, actually, he asked the question. He was asking the question of the Republican Chair. He said: If this reconciliation bill does not find a way to end or offset its tax cuts in the years beyond 2002-- That is beyond 10 years-- would the bill violate the Byrd rule? And the Presiding Officer responded: Yes, it would. So the second pillar, no deficits in any category beyond 10 years, was preserved--until now. That was in 1996, and here we are, 29 years later. Now there is a goal to destroy the second and third pillars of the 1974 bill. I must say, this is extremely extraordinary and disturbing that my Republican colleagues, who run on fiscal responsibility, destroyed the first pillar of the special system to reduce deficits in 1996, and tonight, they are proposing to destroy the second and third pillars. In that second pillar, no deficits beyond year 10; every category, every year has to be deficit-neutral or reduce the deficit. We can compare that to the law that has just been put forward--or the guidance that has just been put forward. We can look at year 11, the instructions that go in every category--year 12, year 13, year 20, year 100. It goes on forever, into the future, and the Republican bill guidance fails the Byrd test. Now, the Byrd test really gets applied in a second stage of the reconciliation process. We are in the budget resolution that sends instructions to committees. Those committees will send back specific revenue provisions: increase this revenue here, reduce it there, proceed to add this policy program, reduce this policy program. When it comes back, every category--that is, every title--of the reconciliation bill, in every single year, by the Byrd rule, has to be deficit-neutral or decrease the deficit. So we will have that debate, but we will have that debate when the reconciliation bill comes back from committee to this floor because my Republican colleagues decided to postpone that debate by taking the scoring rule out of their proposed budget resolution and said: We will kick it down the road to the next stage. And, certainly, we will be here, fiercely defending the deficit- reducing vision of pillars 2 and 3--pillar 2: no deficit in any category or any title of the bill beyond year 10; and pillar 3: use honest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. That pillar has survived since 1974. We even put that pillar into law specifically in 1985 in a bipartisan way. We wanted to emphasize how important that was. Just think about how much more important this process of deficit reduction, special rule of the reconciliation bill, is today than it was back in 1974. In 1974, the debt-to-GDP ratio: 23 percent. Tonight, in 2025, it is 100 percent. It is equal to the entire gross domestic product of the United States. In 1974, the annual deficit was about $6 billion. Today, it is $2 trillion. In 1974, total debt: $475 billion. Today, it is $37 trillion. Now, consider this: All of the debt run up over the last 249 years since the Declaration of Independence, right now, is just a little bit less than $37 trillion. In this single bill--this single bill-- Republicans are saying we will add $37 trillion more--at least that much. When the numbers really come out, we expect it to be higher, but $37 trillion more to the debt. That is a much bigger burden on the future. And what do the economists say about that bigger burden? They said it will increase interest rates that families have to pay on their mortgage and on their car loan since it will decrease the capital available to private industry and slow down our economy. This magic math goes by the name of ``current policy baseline.'' It sounds very academic, but it is essentially the big lie. Consider this: You sign a contract to rent a home for a year, and renting that home costs $2,000 per month so you know you are going to have to pay $24,000 over the year. And at the end of the year, you say: You know what, I am going to renew that agreement to rent this apartment. And your spouse says: You know what, that is going to cost us another $24,000 in rent. And you say: No. I am using the Republican magic math. It won't cost a single dime because we will just pretend that a year ago we had planned to rent the apartment for a second year; and therefore, it is no more than we thought we would pay a year ago--except a year ago you said you were only going to rent the house for a year. In other words, it is a big lie. It is the very smoke and mirrors, the very gimmicks that Democrats and Republicans came together and stopped back in 1974. Fifty-one years ago, we said this game of lying to the public has to end. But tonight, my Republican colleagues are saying that game will continue if they have their way. Well, we say they must not have their way. We are going to stand up and say no to families lose and billionaires win. We are going to say no to magic math that lies to the American people about the cost of their bill, driven by massive tax cuts to the richest Americans. It is a simple request: honesty and integrity. We should not be engaging in a big lie, and Democrats will have no part of it. We are going to be honest about what every provision of the reconciliation bill costs. We are going to be determined to make sure that the Byrd rule stands.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brian Lyons, communications director for the Budget Committee, be given full access to the floor for the balance of his service.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President and colleagues, back in 1974, the Senate and the House were very agitated over the increases in the national annual deficit that was adding considerably to the national debt. They said we needed to do something about this. The levels that they were concerned about at that time seem so small, to date. The debt-to-GDP ratio was 23 percent. Now we are over 100 percent. The annual deficit was about $6 billion. Now we are at about $2 trillion of annual deficit. The total debt was only a third of a trillion rather than, now, $37 trillion. But those increases were seen as such a threat to the future of our Nation that Democrats and Republicans together, House Members and the Senate together, said: We have to get this under control. So they created a bill--the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act--to say: We can't let this go forward. Here is what it did. First of all, it created a fast-track for a special bill called a reconciliation bill that would reduce the deficit and not add more to the debt. Second of all, it says that we have to have integrity in numbers. When Republicans are in charge, they tend to increase the deficits and then want to use smoke screens in order to say: We are not really doing that. When the Democrats are in charge, the same thing. They both wanted to undertake strategies that increase the deficit but pretend they were being fiscally responsible. So they said: We must have integrity on the numbers, so we are going to create a new organization. The Congressional Budget Office will be an independent assessor of the cost of any change in law related to programs or related to tax revenue. Honesty and integrity will be the foundation for the debate that takes place in this Chamber. Honesty and integrity will be the foundation for the debate that takes place in the House Chamber down the hall. Honesty and integrity in numbers will be the foundation for the American people who are following the decision making that is made by their representatives in the House and Senate. So two pillars: a fast-track for reducing deficits--a reconciliation bill; and integrity in numbers by using the Congressional Budget Office--creating it and using their numbers to have honesty in the debate on policy and revenue plans. Well, that first pillar was destroyed in 1996 by a nuclear option done by the Republican majority, who said: Do you know what, we are going to reinterpret the law. So instead of just using this fast-track to reduce the deficit, we are going to also use it for tax policy that will increase the deficit. Today, the second pillar of integrity in the numbers is under attack by the Republican majority. They have lost their minds when it comes to fiscal responsibility. They destroyed first, a couple of decades ago, the fast-track dedicated only to deficit reduction, and now they want to destroy the integrity in the accounting for what a tax policy costs or what a program policy costs--all for a simple purpose, and that is, they have a plan. That plan is to put forward a proposal that would cost an additional amount to the debt of $37 trillion over the next 30 years. But they want to tell this Chamber that that $37 trillion addition to the debt is actually a zero-dollar addition. They want to tell the American people that that $37 trillion addition to the national debt that is in their plan is actually a zero-dollar addition. I can tell you that a $37 trillion deception--that is not a minor fraud; that is a major fraud. In the process, they are destroying the integrity not just for this budget cycle but for every budget cycle to come. The gimmick they are putting forward to accomplish this diabolical plot is called current policy baseline. Why do they want to pursue this Republican plan? Because they want to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and do so not only for a 10-year period but for permanent tax breaks into the future. It is not just magic math. I mean, that is almost too nice of a name to give to it. It is devastating fraud. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report requested by a Republican Congressman, David Schweikert. He had asked them: How much will this fraud cost, this Republican plan cost? The CBO laid it out--$37 trillion of additional debt over the next 30 years. It so happens that right now, our current national debt is just shy of $37 trillion. They want to say the debt that has been run up in the last 250 years--next year, we will be celebrating our 250th year as a nation. The debt that has been run up over this first 250 years--we are going to add that additional amount with one bill, with one vote, in this budget cycle. This is fraud on an unparalleled scale. Schweikert then said: Anyone that says current policy baseline [is the right way to go] is engaging in intellectual and economic fraud . . . it's intellectually lazy. My basic mission in life is just to try to create some honest math. Honest math is what Democrats and Republicans together said they were pursuing in 1974--House and Senate together--honest math. Honest math is on the verge of destruction. Chip Roy of Texas said this plan--referring to the plan--``This is fairy dust, and they're full of crap. And I'm gonna call them out on it.'' Anyone who cares about growing deficits and growing debt should call them out on it--$37 trillion in this Republican plan of additional debt and then adopting a gimmick to tell the American people and this Chamber it costs zero. In the free market, businesses need transparency--transparency so investors can decide if things are going in the right direction, so the board of directors of a company can change direction. They know that they have to have integrity in their numbers. They know that it is important for their board of directors. They also know that it is important for those who buy their stock, the investors. Without honest numbers, they can't make good decisions about where they are going. The same is true for us in government. If we are not willing to use honest numbers, we can't make good decisions about how we go forward. It is that important. Integrity and honesty in our numbers are that important. That is the debate we need to have, an honest examination. Are you for or against a plan that will add $37 trillion to the debt on top of what additions might otherwise happen under current law? That is the question we will be facing. This idea of integrity in the numbers existed before the 1974 Budget Control Act, but it was so important to have outside numbers that people could rely on--independent numbers, bipartisan numbers or nonpartisan numbers--that they created a whole Agency, the Congressional Budget Office, to produce those numbers. It is that essential, so you don't have some think tank giving you pretend numbers from the right or some other think tank giving you pretend numbers from the left. It is that important. You know, this plan, this Republican plan, is like a landlord saying: Don't worry. Your rent is free over the next 30 years because we are not making any changes to your tenant contract. What a farce because you know you have to keep paying that rent every single month. So there is $37 trillion of additional debt being hidden through a gimmick. I pointed out this enormous addition to the debt, but what is the purpose? It is to give tax giveaways to the richest Americans. Sixty percent of the additional debt goes to the richest 10 percent in America. Half of that additional debt, $37 trillion, half of it goes to the richest 5 percent of Americans. So they are not just running up $37 trillion in additional debt; they are running up $37 trillion in additional debt to give the vast majority to the already richest Americans. This is a straightforward, simple provision in which families lose and billionaires win. They are going to attack the spending on Medicaid. That is health insurance that a good third of America, approximately, relies on, that veterans rely on, programs that those with disabilities rely on. They are going to attack that program for tax giveaways to the richest Americans. They are going to steal from Social Security and make it dysfunctional--already, the lines are starting to pile up, and the phones aren't answered--in order to give tax breaks to the richest Americans. They are going to betray working families with a tax on healthcare, housing, and education. Why? To give massive tax breaks to the richest Americans. The situation is clear: Families lose, and billionaires win. Democrats are paying attention. My colleagues the Republicans need to pay attention. They said when they were running that they are for fiscal responsibility, that they are for decreasing the deficit, but, in fact, their plan increases the deficits massively--an additional $4 trillion over the next 2 years and an additional $37 trillion in debt over the next 30 years--to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while slashing programs that help ordinary working families to thrive. This is a vast betrayal of Trump's campaign plan. He campaigned on being a champion for families. But that was a campaign. Now he is in office, and the real plan? Families lose; billionaires win. We must reject this gimmick that destroys the integrity of the budgeting process. One pillar--a filibuster-free pathway for deficit reduction--was destroyed by my Republican colleagues in 1996. The second pillar--integrity in numbers using an outside, independent CBO to give us honest numbers to work with here and for the American people--is going to be destroyed under current policy baseline being proposed right now. Be awake, pay attention, and say hell no to this massive fraud on the American people.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Nathan Sansone today, my shadow intern.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I commend the Friends of Mt. Tabor Park (FMTP) for its 25 years of unwavering dedication to preserving and enhancing one of Portland's most treasured urban green spaces. Mt. Tabor Park is not just a place of natural beauty; it is a community asset, a sanctuary for recreation, and a reflection of Oregon's deep commitment to environmental stewardship. Since its founding in 2000, FTMP and its dedicated volunteers have served as stewards, educators, and protectors of this cherished space, ensuring that the park continues to be a welcoming environment for all. Over the years, FMTP has worked hand in hand with the Portland Parks & Recreation, complementing city services and mobilizing a near- constant presence of engaged volunteers. Its commitment has helped maintain public safety, beautify and protect our natural spaces, and sustain opportunities for community programming--even in the most challenging times, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its work is a model of civic engagement and a testament to what is possible when a community comes together with purpose and passion. As FMTP celebrates 25 years of service, we honor its profound impact on Portland's livability and the countless individuals who have given their time and energy to preserve the urban oasis. I extend my deepest gratitude to the FTMP and look forward to its continued success in the next 25 years and beyond. Congratulations on this milestone anniversary and thank you for your tireless commitment to the people and natural spaces of Portland.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, colleagues, let me keep this very simple. We provided a lot of funding in the Inflation Reduction Act so that those who have very sophisticated finances and very powerful advisers that try to avoid ever paying their taxes don't get away with it, because it is a fundamental fairness all across America. Ordinary working people have the money taken out of their paychecks every week. Just because people have enormous paychecks and fancy consultants, it shouldn't mean that they get a license to cheat. And all of that money went to make sure that those upper income folks knew that somebody might be taking a look at their finances. If this amendment fails, it will increase the deficit by $46 billion. So I hope all of you who are fiscally responsible and care about fundamental fairness to workers across America will vote for this amendment.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1273 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for my intern Ellie White to have privileges of the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, here is the question: Do we pursue the 20th century energy vision featuring dirty, expensive fossil fuels, or do we pursue the 21st century energy vision featuring inexpensive and clean, renewable energy? Trump's energy emergency declaration is about one thing: He is choosing the strategy of dirty, expensive fossil fuels. You know, he asked the powerful, big oil companies to contribute a billion dollars to his campaign, and now he is paying them back at the expense of the American people. Families lose; billionaires win. The plan. The plan features giving fossil fuel companies the power to seize public lands. It features giving fossil fuel companies the power to skip environmental assessments, environmental assessments that show how their projects will poison the air, pollute the water, kill wildlife, and despoil our ecosystems. It is the plan of giving fossil fuel companies the power to bypass the public comment period so the public can't weigh in about the terrible ideas the fossil fuel companies are putting forward. The public can't weigh in about the drilling rigs and the leaky pipelines and the export terminals polluting their communities. This is not government of, by, and for the people; it is government of, by, and for the oil and gas companies. Families lose; billionaires win. This emergency declaration is certainly a sham because renewable energy costs less than fossil fuel energy. The International Renewable Energy Agency found that the cost of new wind or solar is at least 30 percent cheaper than the cost of running most fossil coal plants. So it is no surprise that in 2024, 94 percent of the new energy on the grid came from renewables, from harnessing the power of the sun and the wind. Prioritizing expensive fossil fuels over cheap renewables drives up the price of energy that families pay on their bills every month. That is Trumpflation. Exporting more fossil fuels mean families pay more at the pump, and they pay more to heat their homes. That is Trumpflation. And burning more fossil fuels intensifies climate chaos and wildfires and hurricanes. It blows the top off the cost of insurance for people's homes as insurers flee the markets. That is Trumpflation. Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies make even bigger profits. Families lose; billionaires win. You know, this is not a red State or a blue State issue. Since August 2022, investments from the Inflation Reduction Act have created more than 400,000 clean energy jobs with more than half of those jobs in red States. In fact, 19 of the 20 Congressional districts at the top of clean energy investments are represented by my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. What are the top three States overall of clean energy job growth? Idaho, Texas, and New Mexico--two out of those three States represented by Republicans in the Senate. For wind energy, it is Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Illinois--four out of five States represented in this Senate by Republicans. For solar energy it is California, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona--three out of five of those States represented by Republicans. So this is not a blue versus red situation. Nearly 3.5 million Americans now work in the clean energy field, more than a million of those jobs in red States. And it is estimated that these investments will continue to create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. Prioritizing fossil fuels will kill this job growth for working Americans. So this strategy, this energy emergency strategy, this is an energy strategy in which families lose; billionaires win. And there are far fewer good-paying jobs for Americans. And, by the way, prioritizing fossil fuels is helpful to China. If we have a national energy emergency, we shouldn't be fueling our competitors by selling our energy to China to make their economy run better. If we have an emergency, we shouldn't cede the future of clean energy and all the jobs it will create and the less expensive energy it creates to China. We would want to make these products here and export them to the world, not have to buy them from China, helping China's economy grow at the expense of our own. This phony national emergency declaration comes down to this: Do we want families to win or do we want billionaires to win? Let's come together, red States and blue States together, and say: We want these jobs. We want this clean energy. We want this less expensive energy for America because we are fighting for the families, not for the billionaires.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, families lose, billionaires win. That is the proposition at the heart of the Republican budget resolution. Now, this plan is going to be explored tonight through a series of amendments. As the American people watch how we vote on these amendments, it will become clearer and clearer what it is all about; families lose, billionaires win. We will see tonight that Democrats vote against irreparable increases to the deficit, and Republicans vote to explode the deficit. We will see tonight, Democrats vote against tax giveaways to the billionaires, and Republicans vote for tax giveaways to the billionaires. We will see tonight, Democrats vote again and again to protect programs that support families while Republicans vote time and time again to slash those programs, those programs that families depend on to be on their feet and to thrive, to move into the middle class, to move beyond the middle class, to know with confidence that their children will have a strong foundation for growing up. That is what we will see tonight; families lose, and billionaires win. Democrats will fight this terrible vision for America in every single way we can. Now, our Republican colleagues earlier on the floor said: Oh, no, no. This bill is nothing except a little bit about border security and national security. If that were true, then why isn't this a conversation in the spending committee, the Appropriations Committee? If that were true, why did our Republican colleagues repeatedly block bipartisan border and Defense bills? Last year, the Appropriations Committee passed a strong bipartisan defense bill. Let's pass it. Last year, the Senate negotiated a bipartisan border deal, and Donald Trump, the candidate, killed it saying he wanted to exploit the issue of immigration on the campaign trail. Well, the campaign is over. There is a path now for that same bipartisan bill on the border. All of this makes it absolutely clear that this bill is not about border and defense. This bill is all about this; families losing, billionaires winning. This bill has a budget table that relays that they are going to slash $1 trillion in programs for families in just the last 6 months of this fiscal year--between now and September 30--and to do so, to fund more tax giveaways to megamillionaires and billionaires, cut the programs for families to fund tax cuts for billionaires. That is what this is about. We saw that also last Wednesday in the Budget Committee. Democrats offered amendment after amendment to protect the programs, and what did we see to protect against the rising cost of groceries? Democrats voted for that protection; Republicans rejected it. Make sure that we don't lose the tax credits that enable the middle class to buy health insurance on the exchange? Democrats defended those credits; Republicans voted against it. Attack Medicaid, healthcare for the poor? Democrats voted to protect Medicaid, and Republicans voted against it. Lower the price of prescription drugs so we don't pay more than people in other countries? Democrats voted for that protection; Republicans rejected it. And on and on. Renting or buying a home, controlling the costs? Democrats voted to defend and lower housing costs; Republicans rejected it. Making college more expensive? Democrats said: No way. We voted against that. Republicans rejected it so they could raise costs of college loans and childcare. That is what this bill is about; families lose, and billionaires win. Republicans rejected every single amendment to help families stand on their feet and thrive, and families are going to pay a much higher price. In fact, this budget resolution opens the door to higher prices on groceries. That is Trumpflation. Trumpflation has arrived. This budget opens the door to making healthcare more expensive, both for low-income families and for middle-class families. Trumpflation, this budget opens the door to making college more expensive. I was the first in my family to go to college. It was a really big deal that we found a way to be able to afford to go. My family helped out, and I worked my way all through college. Making it more expensive, that is wrong. Trumpflation has arrived in the form of making college more expensive--all of this strategy to increase the costs for Americans. Boy, I am not getting any calls to my office. Are you getting any calls to your office, colleagues? Saying we want to raise the cost for Americans? Didn't I hear Trump on the campaign trail saying he was all about lowering costs? But tonight, this bill is about Trumpflation increasing the cost of goods to ordinary Americans. Yes, it is about decreasing the cost to billionaires through massive tax cuts. This bill is all about helping the billionaire team. But those thousands of phone calls I have gotten--some days I have had over 2,000 phone calls--not one--not one single one said: We want Trumpflation. Not one single one said: We want tax cuts for billionaires. Not one single call at 2,000 a day said: We want you to cut the programs that enable families to be on their feet in healthcare and housing and education and childcare. Candidate Trump is a different person from President Trump. Candidate Trump said: I am running to fight for families. But now who is he fighting for? He is fighting for the megamillionaires and the billionaires. This is a great betrayal. And this connection exists between cutting the programs for families and funding tax giveaways to those megamillionaires and billionaires, and we have seen this movie before. We saw it in the 2017 strategy during the last Trump administration. They did a tax bill and almost all the money went to the wealthiest Americans. So this isn't some, like, fiction about President Trump. This is a clear replay of the Republican plan. They did it before, and they are doing it again. Now, you probably heard the expression during your life: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Well, America, you are getting fooled a second time. This is the great betrayal. Let's not let that happen. We will fight it here, but it is going to take American citizens rising up to their feet, getting off of the couch, joining organizations, making their voice heard. That is what is going to make the difference in the course of what happens here in Congress. It is the voice of the people on the streets, as well as the battle we lead inside this Chamber, that is going to save us from Trumpflation, that is going to save us from the plan that attacks families and feathers the nests of billionaires. This connection between cutting programs for families and increasing tax giveaways for billionaires, it is actually in the Republican bill on the House side. They made it explicit. This House language says for every additional dollar they cut from the safety net, they can give away an additional dollar to billionaires in tax cuts. It is in the Republican bill in the House just down the hall. That is a pretty remarkable and bold thing to lay out for all of America to read. There is an additional factor here in the Republican plan, and that is to run the Nation deeper into debt. We have seen this play again before. Each of these bars represents an administration. The first President Bush administration, the Clinton administration, George W. Bush, his 8 years, Obama's 8 years, Trump's 4 years, Biden's 4 years, and what you see is the difference between the deficit their first year in office and their last year in office. So what happened over the course of H.W. Bush's 4 years is the deficit went up. What you see in Clinton's 8 years is the annual deficit went down. His last deficit was not even a deficit, it was a surplus. George W. Bush came along and said: Let's run that deficit right back up, and he did it, 8 years; a lot more deficit in his eighth year than his first year. Obama came along and set fiscal discipline. Let's lower that deficit, and he lowered it year after year from his first year to his eighth year. And then we come to the first Trump administration, and he just blew the top off it all. Talk about the biggest contributor, the biggest deficits, the biggest contributors to national debt, it is the first Trump administration. And along comes the Biden administration and says: We have got to lower those deficits; and in his 4 years, his fourth deficit was much lower than his first. Now we are seeing Trump II, and this budget plan tonight, that is this bar. This is going back up. Maybe not as large to be planned as Trump I in terms of that, but absolutely going in the wrong direction. So it is a mystery. My Republican colleagues, they campaign as fiscally conservative. They say they are going to lower the deficit, and every single time they fool us. They come in here, they cut the taxes for the richest Americans, revenues proceed to fail to compensate, and they run up the deficit. And now they are going to do it again if we let this budget resolution pass. So let's not let it pass. Let's oppose it. Republican colleagues, come and join us in fiscal responsibility and take this budget resolution that is laying out a vision of more and more deficits and more and more debt and put it in the woodchipper. We have been hearing a lot about the woodchipper. Take this plan that cuts programs for families and put it in the woodchipper. Take this plan that gives tax giveaways to the richest Americans--the megamillionaires and the billionaires--and put it in the woodchipper because it is wrong for America to attack the programs for families in order to fund tax giveaways to billionaires. President Trump has said he wants a ``big, beautiful''--beautiful-- ``bill.'' But you know what? There is nothing beautiful about the bill that is on the floor tonight. There is nothing beautiful about destroying the programs families depend on. There is nothing beautiful about using those cuts to fund tax cuts for billionaires. There is nothing beautiful about running up the deficits and debt Republican- style that they do every single time. What we have right now is not government by and for the people. What we have right now is by and for the billionaires. President Trump made that very clear at his inaugural address. Who do we have standing right behind him? Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire of Facebook; at this end, the scowl on his face, Elon Musk, CEO of so many companies, including Tesla. Who do we have? Jeff Bezos of Amazon, one of the richest men in the world along with Elon Musk. And we have Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Alphabet, the mother company of Google. By and for billionaires, that is what that is all about. So Democrats will not rest tonight until we vote on each of our amendments to protect working families. We will not rest tonight till we vote on each of our amendments to stop the tax giveaways to billionaires. And tonight, Democrats will be fighting by ourselves, inviting our Republican colleagues to join us. But we will not be fighting for ourselves alone; we are fighting for the American family. This Republican budget, it is the great betrayal; and we, the Democrats, will fight to stop it. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1207 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, all evening we have been pointing out that, with this bill, families lose and billionaires win. That is certainly put onto steroids with this amendment because this amendment would add a quarter trillion dollars directed at the SNAP program. It would add a third of a trillion dollars directed at reducing the viability of student loans, and almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars to devastate Medicaid--programs that families depend on to be able to thrive, to live in the middle class, to pursue opportunity. I encourage everyone, if you don't want to have a bill in which families lose, vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 999

Mr. MERKLEY. Colleagues, this amendment encourages the opportunity for Americans to purchase prescription drugs at or near the lower prices that manufacturers charge to individuals in other similar, developed nations. Here is what every American knows: We all invest more in the research and development to develop drugs than the taxpayers of any other nation in the entire world, so we should be getting the best price, not the worst price. This amendment creates an opportunity for us to serve the American people and get them the fair prices they deserve.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 473 and ask that it be reported by number.