Senator Murray Opening Remarks at Full Committee Hearing on Trump’s Rescission Package
WATCH: SENATOR MURRAY’S OPENING REMARKS
FACT SHEET: RESCISSION PACKAGE WOULD DEVASTATE LOCAL PUBLIC RADIO, TV STATIONS ACROSS AMERICA
***FACT-FICTION: TRUMP’S RESCISSION PACKAGE WOULD GUT BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY INVESTMENTS***
Washington, D.C. — Today, during a Senate Appropriations Full Committee hearing on President Trump’s $9.4 billion rescission request—U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, underscored in her opening remarks how Republicans passing the package would devastate local public radio and TV stations nationwide, gut investments Congress has made to support longstanding bipartisan foreign policy objectives, and undermine the bipartisan annual appropriations process.
Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:
“Thank you very much, Chair Collins, and thank you for your leadership in convening this very important hearing. Because, let’s be honest, we are at a crossroads.
“Right now, this Committee is hard at work as we round out our final budget hearings and seek to negotiate bipartisan funding bills. I am pleased with the progress we’re making, and hope our productive conversations result in bipartisan markups, just as we did in the previous two years.
“After Congress failed to pass full-year bills in the FY25, it is so important we pass full-year spending bills that deliver the investments that our communities need.
“And this hearing today asks a very important question: Will Congress stand up and protect its constitutional power of the purse—and will this Committee band together to finally say, ‘enough is enough,’ and show bipartisanship still matters? Or will we, for the first time ever, pass an entirely partisan rescissions package and jeopardize the bipartisan work?
“I hate to be blunt—but that is question is at the heart of this first rescissions request, which would gut bipartisan investments in foreign assistance, reliable local news, and high-quality educational programming.
“To my colleagues: After our negotiations are done—sometimes hard-fought negotiations—and we thank each other for the bipartisan effort, and tell folks back home what we secured, will we let the President then come in and rip that work to shreds?
“I certainly hope not—because I am truly proud of the bipartisan work that we do, do on this Committee—and I know you all are as well.
“I see how personal it is when you advocate for the research hub in your district, or for upgrades to your local military base, or I hear passionate arguments to rebuild a bridge that your communities rely on or support rural areas that are at risk of being cut off. Or I hear really thoughtful debates about how we strengthen America’s role in the world, support small businesses, and farmers, and tribes, and respond to disasters.
“And when that discussion is over: we don’t just fund the red states when you have the majority, and the blue states when we have the majority. We prioritize programs and projects no matter where they are—based on what members on both sides advocate for.
“Do I agree with every item in every spending bill? No. I don’ think any member of this committee would say they do. But that is what it means to be a part of a compromise and build bipartisan bills for the good of the country.
“This is true of every bill we do. Each of us knows we are voting for items that are vital to our colleagues just as much as we are voting for priorities that are vital to all of us.
“And, I have offered to the Chair and others in this room to do what this Committee has always done—consider bipartisan rescissions in our bills through the annual process, which is the right way to do it.
“But the partisan package before us today cuts to the very heart of the work we do—and the very ability of this Committee to do it. None of us would sit here and agree to bipartisan bills knowing their partners were just going to gut that deal with rescissions. I hope each of us thinks about that today. And I hope we will consider the genuine damage these cuts would cause as well.
“If President Trump and Director Vought get their way—and Republicans pass this package—they will not only gut the heart of compromise that this Committee is built around, but zero out longstanding bipartisan investments.
“They will rip away funding that supports over 1,500 local public TV and radio stations. Rural communities will be the hardest hit—not to mention kids!
“There’s a reason the American people support continuing these investments by a two-to-one margin. Local news gives people information relevant to their daily lives, what community events are coming up, how the school board is preparing for the next year, weather and market reports for our farmers, not to mention the emergency alerts when disaster strikes. When Hurricane Helene battered North Carolina—the local public radio station was the only source of information about the latest developments for many people.
“Talk to any parent—they will warn you: if Republican cuts end up canceling free, high-quality programming that is thoughtfully developed to get our kids thinking, and to grow their curiosity. There’s an alarming amount of low-quality junk to fill that void—content that is instead, carefully engineered to keep kids watching, and shorten their attention spans.
“Trump also wants Congress to surrender America’s leadership on the world stage, with drastic cuts to longstanding, bipartisan foreign policy investments this Committee has made. Global health programs that protect Americans by stopping infectious diseases before they ever reach our shores. UN treaty obligations that don’t just affect America’s credibility and leadership—but also counter the Chinese government as it works to increase investments and influence. And investing in humanitarian aid and economic development pays off for our nation by promoting stability and democracy, and strengthening key relationships, and a lot more.
“We can debate the scale of our efforts, but stripping this funding out months after enacting it doesn’t serve our interests.
“Especially when Director Vought won’t specify which bipartisan priorities will be cut.
“Perhaps the only silver lining of this package, is the fact that the Administration even bothered to send it, and acknowledge our laws and the authority of Congress, instead of flagrantly breaking the law—something it has done relentlessly under the directorship of Director Vought.
“But let’s not kid ourselves. This vote does not represent a path back to lawful behavior, when Director Vought continues to, as he says, ‘keep all options on the table’ when it comes to ignoring the law.
“Every single one of us should be deeply alarmed by the lawless course the Administration is charting here: illegally impounding hundreds of billions of dollars, ignoring provisions of our appropriations law, including pulling down the website detailing how they spend taxpayer dollars—in direct defiance of the law that requires that, cherry picking what emergency funding would be spent.
“And let’s not forget, we have yet to get detailed agency spend plans for this fiscal year showing how taxpayer dollars are being spent.
“Even now, Director Vought is advocating to cut Congress out entirely—through the absurdly lawless idea of a ‘pocket rescission.’
“Given that track record—there is no ‘benefit of the doubt’ the Trump Administration gets for coming here. And there is no ‘fixing’ this package that is a direct threat to continuing our long track record of bipartisan work and holding bipartisan markups this summer.
“To my colleagues, if we do not reject this rescissions package—outright—and seriously defend the authority of Congress and work of this Committee, we will find, very quickly, our bills become a lot less important, and our time is consumed by more and more rescissions packages to undo the work that we just wrapped up.
“I really worry in a time when we should be coming together to ensure the safety, economic growth, and security of this country—instead we will race forward with rescission package after rescission package. It will be PBS and PEPFAR that get chopped this time. Maybe family planning, investments in public schools next.
“But you know, I think we are all proud to be on this Committee, on this Appropriations Committee. This is a powerful role where we can do a lot of good for our communities.
“But it is not powerful just ‘because.’ That power comes from our ability to work together to write bills that actually become law and our willingness to assert our authority, so those bills are enacted as intended. If we choose to ignore that—if we fail to defend that—this Committee can, and will, lose its power. And we are getting perilously close to that line.
“When I first came to Congress—when I first sought and asked to join this Committee for all the reasons all of you joined this Committee—one of the hot button issues at that time, was the line-item veto.
“President Clinton was seeking to have it and Chairman Byrd and this Committee—this Committee—were organizing against it together.
“I was asked, should a Democratic Senate, help a Democratic President, rip up the bills it worked to pass? And I said ‘No,’ that is not how this should work.
“I wanted to be on this Committee to help my state, my constituents, not to weaken or surrender those responsibilities to any President. I hope my colleagues understand, that is as true for me today as it was then.
“And if my colleagues agree, which I believe many do, then the course we need to take is clear. We have to reject this package outright, and then focus squarely on the job in front of us, writing bipartisan bills for FY26.
“In the regular course of writing our bills, we can, and we will consider whether there are targeted rescissions we can agree on—just as we always do. But we must have that conversation—together. If our funding bills must be bipartisan, then our funding cuts have to be as well—otherwise the entire appropriations process will break down.
“So, I’m very pleased today, to have this opportunity to discuss why these cuts would be so harmful to our communities.
“But I really want all of my colleagues to fully appreciate, why opening this door—even a crack—would be very harmful to this Committee and to Congress as well. And what it would mean for the work we all hope to do together.”
###
Next Article Previous Article