Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan".

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 672 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met last night and reported out a rule providing for consideration of four measures.

Those measures are H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act; H.J. Res. 104, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management related to ``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment''; H.J. Res. 105, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''; and H.J. Res. 106, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan.''

House Resolution 672 provides for consideration of H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act under a structured rule, making in order 36 amendments.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106, all under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides each one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 668 and H. Res. 605 are hereby adopted and House Res. 598 is laid on the table.

Today's rule, House Resolution 672, allows for debate on several measures including H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026.

This appropriations bill funds many programs at the center of helping to assert our country's energy dominance. The bill cuts $766.4 million, when compared to last year's funding bill, by focusing our efforts on energy innovation and water infrastructure.

This appropriations bill provides funding to numerous scientific energy endeavors from nuclear fusion research, small modular reactors, nuclear fuel production, electric transmission system enhancements, energy storage, and traditional fossil fuel research.

At a time when energy demand from data centers and new manufacturing is increasing, these research efforts will greatly contribute to meeting the new normal. Our example is the increase of funding for nuclear energy projects, which will make more advanced nuclear fuel available and accelerate small modular and advanced reactor testing. The Department is also essential to our national security.

This appropriations bill has over $20 billion in funds for the management of our nuclear weapons stockpile and over $2 billion for our nuclear Navy.

This bill also funds numerous Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects to provide dredging to maintain navigable ports and rivers and water storage projects to increase the water supply in drought-ridden sections of our country, as well as helping to forestall flooding in areas from coastal regions to mountainous valley regions such as the area I represent.

The rule also provides for debate on H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106, all of which are Congressional Review Act Resolutions of Disapproval.

These resolutions overturn the Biden administration's Bureau of Land Management plans that were aimed at restricting gold mining and oil and gas drilling on Federal lands.

H.J. Res. 104, sponsored by Congressman Downing of Montana, overturns the Montana Resource Management Plan, which would prohibit new coal mining on about 2.75 million acres of Federal land in Montana. This Bureau of Land Management rule would stop an estimated 30 percent of our country's coal reserves from being mined, even as electricity demand is increasing in the United States for the first time in over 10 years.

H.J. Res. 105, sponsored by my Energy and Commerce colleague, Congresswoman Fedorchak, would overturn a similar Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan for North Dakota. Under this Biden- Harris administration rule, 4 million acres of Federal land in North Dakota would not be available for coal mining or oil and gas extraction.

Additionally, the rule allows for debate on H.J. Res. 106, sponsored by Congressman Nick Begich of Alaska, which would nullify the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan. Under this rule, which affects 13.3 million acres of Federal land in Alaska, millions of acres would be barred from energy development.

Disallowing energy development on these lands will also hamstring efforts to get more American liquid natural gas onto the international market and improve our country's standing as the leading energy producer in the world.

We will also be considering a resolution that would direct the House Oversight Committee to continue their investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell files.

The Committee has already undertaken important steps in their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Just this week, the committee met with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. They have already issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice related to the Epstein records.

Further, they have already received over 33,000 documents from the Department of Justice with more on the way. Those 33,000 documents, Mr. Speaker, were released last night to the public.

The committee already has transcribed interviews scheduled and have other subpoenas out, as well. They are also doing this work in a bipartisan manner, and we must give them all the tools necessary to continue this important investigation.

This resolution will bring transparency into all the documents and records related to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs, any individuals referenced in connection to Epstein, any entities with ties to Epstein, any agency internal documents, documents related to Epstein's detention and death, and other areas.

Mr. Speaker, there are strings attached to this resolution, as well, to ensure that we have full transparency, such as requiring written justification requirements for certain documents that are redacted, unless they fall under certain sensitive categories.

This is a critical step forward in providing transparency into the Epstein files and will give the public all the necessary information.

This vote will show the American people we are committed to full transparency and cooperation when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein and the investigation thereof.

Lastly, this rule is standing up a new select committee to continue investigation of the events surrounding January 6. They will bring more transparency and continue to investigate

what happened that day so the American public is aware of the facts involved.

I believe this new subcommittee is another critical step forward to bringing more transparency to everyone about the events and details surrounding that day. I hope Members of this House support the passage of the rule and the underlying bills and resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that would apply to Members of Congress being called names, would it not. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is so fascinating how facts don't seem to matter sometimes on the floor. The only administration that has ever released anything on the Epstein files is the Trump administration. Last night, the House Oversight and Reform Committee released over 33,000 files. Now they say that 97 percent of it had already been released, 33,000 files. That is a lot of files.

Let's take that 97 percent and say that it is accurate for argument and for argument only.

That means that of 33,000 files, 3 percent of that is new. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, as I was going through clips this morning, I noticed one conservative news source that said: Eureka, the missing minute surrounding Epstein's death is in the material that has been released.

There has been a lot of controversy about that. A lot of people want to know about it, and there it is.

More and more information is coming out, and it is coming out because of the Trump administration and because of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

However, somehow if we don't adhere to the exact demands of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, then we are not doing it right. I submit to you,

Mr. Speaker, that the House Oversight and Reform Committee is doing it right. They are going through it.

As I pointed out in my opening, Mr. Speaker, if they decide to use one of the limited areas that they could do a redaction, then they have to explain why. If the administration doesn't turn over some information, if they redact information before sending it to the House, then they have to explain why.

Of course, some of the information that you want to protect, Mr. Speaker, is information related to victims that has not yet been in the press.

Why would we want to take young women who were victims of Epstein and his colleagues and who don't want to have their name in the press, why would we suddenly expose them to that?

Of course, we don't want to do that, so there has to be some limited areas where redactions have to occur, but all of that has to be explained.

Then they bring up the President's comments this morning about a hoax. They are trying to mislead, in my opinion, some are trying to mislead the American people into thinking that the President said that Epstein and the investigation was a hoax. It is not what he said.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at what he said, it was the controversy over the Epstein files that was a hoax because they have been releasing more data than any other administration.

I say that because the Biden administration had all this information, and they didn't release it. They had 4 years. They could have released it all. They didn't choose to do it, and now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle somehow want to claim that it is a conspiracy by Trump to hide information that was in the hands of their party's President and their party's Department of Justice. It was in their hands, and they didn't release it, but somehow it is our fault. Mr. Speaker, it is the Republicans' fault that the Biden administration didn't do what they now claim that the Trump administration should be doing.

It is hard to understand that logic, but somehow we are at fault, Mr. Speaker, for them not doing the job that they think we should have made their President do.

It is fascinating. It is absolutely fascinating.

Then, of course, we get to all the consternation about this January 6th Committee. This is an outgrowth of an investigation that started as a part of the House Administration Committee.

I served on the subcommittee that was doing that investigation. It is really interesting. That group, and I was a part of it, found that there was more than one terabyte of missing data. Based on the inventory of the digest and statements from Chairman Thompson, there should have been four terabytes turned over, and there were only three. That is equivalent to 6.5 million document pages as PDFs or office files, 500 hours of high-definition video, or 250,000 photos. The depositions were not filed properly or they weren't filed at all and archived as they are supposed to be, and as the rule that set up the prior committee said, they were supposed to be there.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as a former member of this preceding group, we are just trying to get the data that is missing. We are trying to make sure we put all the information on the table. We want the files released that were out there. We want to find that missing terabyte of information. Some of it has been recovered, but not all of it, and that work needs to be continued.

Further, the House Administration subcommittee didn't have the power to subpoena records. I would submit that it is necessary just to get all the information out.

As I said last night to my colleagues, as a person who loves history and has a history degree, I need to get all the documents on the table, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and let history determine what occurred on that day.

There is no point in trying to hide it. I don't understand why my colleagues on the other side want to hide a terabyte. A fourth of what the prior committee did was never properly turned over to the House. That information belongs to the House and to the people of the United States. It does not belong hidden somewhere in a drawer or destroyed.

Unfortunately, because of that lack of turning over the records in a proper manner to the House, we have to continue the work that was not done by the previous Democrat-controlled--I know they had two Republicans on it, but they weren't the Members picked by the House Republicans, and it wasn't in the numbers usually allocated or originally called for, for a select committee.

We are going to do it right, and we are going to put the information on the table. We are going to let the American people make a judgment now, and let the historians argue over what happened on that day as time moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me state up front that I make no apology for being pro-U.S. energy. I make no apology for saying that the United States needs more electric power. I make no apology for saying we can get that electric power with things like these bills that are in this rule today. It works on small modular reactors. It works on nuclear. It works on fusion. It works on coal. It works on making sure that we have the ability to mine the coal in the United States. It makes sure we have the ability to extract our oil and our natural gas resources.

If we want to compete with the Chinese, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to up our game on producing electric power. It is fascinating to me that when we hear these debates, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will often point out--in fact, they did it last night--that the Chinese are doing so much more with wind and solar. They never mention that the Chinese are building dozens of new power plants, as we speak, powered by coal.

If we are going to use the Chinese as the model that we are supposed to follow in generating electricity, we should, therefore, not be closing down all of our coal power plants.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the coal in the United States and the way that we burn it is much cleaner than the way the Chinese burn it in their plants. We need to be working on making sure that we have new energy development, which the energy and water bill does, and ways that we can burn that coal and our natural gas even cleaner than we are doing today, even though we produce electricity cleaner with our fossil fuels than any other country in the world.

Guess what we can do, Mr. Speaker. If we can continue to move forward and build new plants and show how this new technology can be used, we can then be the ones who are exporting it to sub-Saharan Africa and India instead of having the Chinese exporting facilities and the technologies that are from the 1960s and 1970s, instead of the technologies that are available today.

When you talk about the air on the planet Earth, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that the air is shared by all of us. In fact, there is a NASA study that I often cite that says it takes air 10 days to get from the middle of the Gobi Desert to the eastern shore of Virginia. That is why a majority of the mercury in California comes from Asia and not from the plants in California. It comes from overseas.

Mr. Speaker, the more that we can do with our fossil fuel plants and our technologies to make our processes cleaner and then export it to the rest of the world, the more we can do to clean up the air in the world as a whole because the air is not something that uniquely belongs to the United States. It doesn't sit over one town very long. Sometimes we get a little inversion in the Roanoke area and it sits there for a few days, but it doesn't sit there for weeks and months and years. We need to be looking at the worldwide issue in regard to that.

Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for supporting bills that will take care of making sure that we can, in this Nation, as a nation, all of us, profit and have the AI needed and have the electricity needed for data centers instead of giving it and ceding it to the Chinese because we don't want to work on oil, natural gas, and coal because somehow my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that those resources are not appropriate to be used in the United States.

If we want to be a second-rate country, have at it, but that is not what I stand for, Mr. Speaker. I stand for us being the leading energy producer in the world and making sure that we do it as clean as possible so that we can export our clean coal technology, our clean natural gas facilities, new fusion if we can get there, new modular reactors, and export that technology to the world and be the leader in the world when it comes to energy production; but, number one, making sure that we take care of our needs in the United States as we are looking at not having enough electricity going forward to keep our economy as the number one economy in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I often tell people back home that this is important not just for today but for the generations to come because when you look at the powers in the economic sphere in the past, some very small nations have reached into the future and benefited their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

In fact, I often talk about Royal Dutch Shell Group, Shell Oil, which was a derivative. Mr. Speaker, you can attack how they got the money because it was all part of colonialism, and I get that. Yet, because they were the number one economic nation in the world from roughly 1650 to 1700, there are still people and families in the Netherlands who are benefiting. Notwithstanding the fact that they moved their headquarters to London, they are benefiting from the fact that, at one time, their nation was the number one economic nation in the world.

I want that for the United States. I want us to be the number one economic nation as long as possible so that children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren out 10 generations will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for supporting these bills that we have in this rule today and supporting the fact that American energy is predominant and should remain a major force in the world instead of ceding everything to the Chinese.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this Epstein situation is very serious, and I take it as such. We have victims whose lives can never be made whole, and this debate has taken on a life of its own. In many ways, it is illogical.

On the one hand, we have the resolution included in the rule that has subpoena power and has broader authority than the Massie-Khanna piece of legislation that my colleagues on the other side want. It gives us the ability to subpoena banking records, estate files, and depositions, none of which are required in the Massie bill.

Further, I find it interesting, because ours is a resolution that gives the endorsement of the House, gives more power in the oomph behind the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's hard work.

The opposing piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, should it pass the House, goes over to the Senate. Should it pass the Senate, it requires the signature of the very President who they say wants to block it.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the American people, it would only be logical to go with the one that can get voted on in the House and have action going forward and have action taking place that deals with these serious issues and brings to light every piece of information that we can put on the table with the rare exceptions of a few redactions, which have to be explained and some of which are necessary to protect some of the victims themselves because they don't want to have their names out there in the public.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand it. If what we want is the information, we should pass this rule and move forward, and not have to rely on passage in the Senate and signature by the President.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to energy, I can tell you that I represent a region of the country where when we were using our coal resources, which God has blessed us with abundantly, we had the third or fourth lowest electric rates in the country.

Then suddenly fossil fuels became a bad idea. Even natural gas, oh, my gosh, we can't use it, and the electric rates keep going up and up and up. My district is not a wealthy district, and the people in my district are complaining because their electricity rates are going up.

One of the major drivers are prior Democratic policies, Mr. Speaker, that said we are not going to be doing any more coal-fired power plants. We are not going to encourage natural gas to be used to create electricity, and we stranded the assets.

Now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, what that means is that they are paying for the electricity generated by wind and solar, and they are paying for the electricity that was there for plants that were opened which have not met their full expectation or life cycle.

For example, there is a facility in my district that I went to the ribbon cutting on in 2012 that Democrats in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including some of my esteemed colleagues on the other side from that great Commonwealth, thought it was appropriate to say: Let's close that down early.

It opened in 2012 with a 50-to-60 year life expectancy, and they wanted to close it down somewhere around 2035 or 2040, well before its life expectancy is up. What that does is that pushes the power companies to have to find different and more expensive ways, as it turns out, to create that electricity.

What this bill does is, it pushes us on nuclear, which if you don't want to use fossil, that is the only way you can get the baseload power to supply us and make us competitive with the Chinese in the field of AI. Yet, somehow, once again my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot realize that it is the policies of their prior Congresses and their prior administrations which, in large measure--not exclusively, but in large measure have caused the spike--not a general increase, not inflation level, but a spike over and above your general inflation--on the cost of energy in this country.

If we get back to the basics, if we pass this rule--we have three CRAs and the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, all of which help make the United States of America more viable when it comes to energy and makes those electric prices that my colleagues said was one of the bigger concerns that she heard when touring around the Commonwealth--the cost of those energy prices will go down if we pass this rule and pass the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this rule covers a number of topics, and we have been over them--energy, water. We didn't get much into the full funding of the Army Corps so they can help take care of flooding problems in my district and other districts, take care of water problems, et cetera.

We have argued for over an hour, most of it being the same repetitive things. This rule gives that extra oomph. It shows the support for the work that the Oversight Committee is doing regarding the Epstein files. It moves us forward on energy and water. It moves us forward on energy production in the United States. It moves us forward on nuclear power and making sure that we are using it in a responsible but effective way so that we can continue to be the world's leader when it comes to energy production, instead of handcuffing our capabilities.

We have gone over a lot of serious issues. The American people who are paying attention to this have already heard all of those arguments.

Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that I hope that all the Members of this House will support the passage of this rule. It is important for a number of reasons, and I hope they will pass the underlying bills and resolutions when those come up.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This rule is insane. Notwithstanding the gentleman's monotone delivery, there is a lot going on here in this rule, and much of it is not good.

What are Republicans doing the first week back? Are they doing something to lower food costs as Trump's tariffs drive prices up? No.

Are they doing something to fully fund the government before it shuts down in less than a month? No.

Are they doing something to help with skyrocketing healthcare prices or reversing their devastating cuts to Medicaid? No.

They are doing none of that. They are doing nothing to help regular people. They are doing nothing to help workers, families, or people struggling to get by.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, these guys are continuing to cover up the Epstein files.

Republicans are deeming as passed--which means no debate, no hearing, and no markup--they are deeming as passed a new, fake Epstein resolution and killing their last fake Epstein resolution.

All the while we already have a real, bipartisan bill to unseal all these files. It is the Massie-Khanna bill. Last night, every single Republican on the Rules Committee voted against that bipartisan bill, every single one.

As if that is not bad enough, every single Republican on the Rules Committee also voted to create, out of thin air, a brand-new committee to rewrite the history of what happened here on January 6, 2021.

They are so desperate to paper over what happened that day, to whitewash it and to pretend it was a normal tourist visit. I was here, Mr. Speaker, here in this Chamber where you are sitting right now, and you can be damn sure I am not going to let anyone pretend that January 6 was a normal tourist visit. However, Republicans, the gentleman from Virginia included, refuse to even display a plaque to honor the police officers who were here that day.

I am so sick of this BS about how Republicans support law enforcement. Mr. Griffith and every other Republican on the Rules Committee voted against displaying a plaque to honor the law enforcement officers who were here on January 6. That plaque, Mr. Speaker, already exists. Congress already passed a law to create it, and the Speaker just refuses to display it.

Why? Why would he refuse to do it?

I know why, and we all know why. It is the same reason why every Republican voted against releasing the Epstein files. It is because Rules Republicans are scared as hell.

This is not a deliberative body anymore. Under this Republican majority, Congress has become a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. This is all about the ego of the man who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Republicans think they work for Trump. They are obsessed with him. It is pathetic.

Republicans are ruining this institution, Mr. Speaker. They are destroying this institution. Again, let me repeat: Every single Republican on the Rules Committee voted against releasing the Epstein files, every single one.

We heard last night that all Republicans want full transparency, but that is just not true.

Mr. Speaker, let me read you a quote from the top Republican in this country, President Donald J. Trump. This is what he says about the Epstein files: ``It has all been a big hoax. It is perpetrated by the Democrats and some stupid Republicans.''

At a press availability just minutes ago, the President again said that this is all a hoax.

Now, what do Republicans think of that?

Donald Trump says this is all a hoax, and if you want to release the files you are stupid.

Now, I am not surprised. I am not surprised the guy who once called Epstein a ``terrific guy'' and who Epstein considered his closest friend is not actually interested in getting to the truth.

Do you know when this clicked in for me, Mr. Speaker, and for a lot of people?

It clicked after Trump won and then the backtracking began. It clicked again yesterday. It clicked after the same Republican leaders who invited influencers to the White House and then passed out binders about the soon-to-be-released client list suddenly changed their tune. It clicked again yesterday when phase two of the binders came out, more information released that has already been released. Mr. Speaker, 97 percent of it has already been released. It clicked when the same MAGA politicians who once pledged to release everything suddenly came up with more excuses, more delays, and more stalling tactics. What is obvious to everyone is that someone is hiding something.

While all of this stalling goes on, what happens?

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's partner in crime, winds up in a cushy, country club prison courtesy of Trump's political appointees. There is not a word of outrage from the Republican majority, not a whisper of accountability, just silence.

Now let's not pretend that this is complicated. It is pretty obvious what is going on. The Trump administration has the power to release the Epstein files today. They could redact names to protect victims and survivors and deliver the truth, but they refuse.

There is a simple through line to all of this, Mr. Speaker. We all know why Republicans are doing this with the Epstein files. We all know why Republicans refuse to display the plaque honoring the brave law enforcement officers who protected our democracy and protected all of us on January 6. We all know why Republicans vote again and again and again for all these giveaways for the rich and powerful.

It is Donald Trump. He wants to rewrite history. He wants to hide the truth about Jeffrey Epstein, and he wants to continue his giveaways to the well-off and the well-connected.

This is all straight out of the authoritarian playbook, Mr. Speaker, and you can bet your ass we are going to continue fighting like hell to oppose this insanity.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is laughable. It is also unconscionable. We know what is going on here. This is an attempt to distract and to rewrite the history of January 6. Quite frankly, it is offensive. It is offensive to the brave men and women who protected our lives on that day.

There is not a bunch of destroyed evidence like the gentleman claims. That is just not accurate. The select committee complied with the requirements of the resolution establishing it, in consultation with the Clerk of the House and the document retention precedents of other committees of this House. The select committee's final report and its support materials are posted publicly online. Just to be sure, I checked again today. All of them, every single page of every transcript, are posted online publicly. Maybe the gentleman can't find them. I would be happy to give him the website information.

The truth is, they just don't like what the evidence shows, so they want to go on a fishing expedition to try to twist the truth instead of accepting the fact of that day. The fact is this: The people who stormed the Capitol and beat police officers, in order to try to stop the peaceful transition of power, were supporters of Donald Trump, period. It was one of the most shameful and darkest episodes in our democracy. No fishing expedition for alternative facts is going to change the reality.

What is particularly offensive is that Donald Trump pardoned all these people, pardoned the people who beat the police officers who protect all of us every single day. It is shameful.

In speaking about the Epstein files, again, I am looking at the video of a few minutes ago, of Donald Trump speaking to reporters and calling all of this a hoax, the Epstein files a hoax. He is not talking about what we are doing here.

Let me just say to the gentleman and anybody else who wants to know: Listen to what the victims were asking for outside this Capitol just a few minutes ago, the survivors, the survivors of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. Listen to what the survivors have been saying. They want the Massie-Khanna bill passed. They want something with teeth in it that will force this administration to comply because they don't trust that they will.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, that is an awful lot of words to defend the fossil fuel industry. While the gentleman was defending Big Oil and all these big corporations that rip off the American people by charging exorbitant prices for energy and while he was going on that tirade, I went back and I listened to Donald Trump's press conference at the White House.

Not only did he call the move to release the Epstein files a Democratic hoax, he said it was designed to get the American people to focus in on something that was irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, let that sink in. If you listened to the survivors who were in front of the Capitol just a few minutes ago and listened to their horror stories, that is irrelevant? That the President of the United States of America would say something like that is pathetic.

He could very easily put all of this controversy to rest by just releasing the files, and that is why we need to

pass the Massie-Khanna bill because we could actually pass a bill that would compel him to do that.

What you all did in the Rules Committee last night is a resolution that doesn't really mean anything. It is designed as cover. Quite frankly, it is not enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am going to thank the gentleman for publicly splitting with the President of the United States. He said that the Epstein matter was a serious matter. The President just a few minutes ago said it was irrelevant. I think it takes a little courage for Republicans these days to stand up to the President.

I do want to point out for the Record that the resolution that is deemed passed in this rule grants no new authority, no new power, and no new nothing to the Oversight Committee. It doesn't do anything.

If you want to do something, you can go to the well and you can sign the discharge petition to allow us to vote on the Massie-Khanna bill, which would compel and force the Justice Department to release the files.

If the President, by the way, wants to veto that bill, I would like to think that Democrats and Republicans unanimously would join together to override such a veto. I can't imagine anybody here wanting to defend the indefensible.

We have another way you could be helpful here. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 4405, the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, introduced by Representatives Khanna and Massie.

Mr. Speaker, Republican leadership is twisting themselves into knots trying to look like they are doing something on Epstein to give their Members something to vote on, anything for political cover, while also not upsetting the President.

That is why they have deemed in this rule a nonbinding resolution to tell the Oversight Committee to keep doing what they are already doing, which, best as I can tell, is to slow roll the release of documents that the DOJ seems to think are acceptable to the President for release.

Mr. Speaker, the American people didn't ask for an Oversight Committee investigation. They asked for all the Epstein files to be released, the very thing that the Trump administration promised and then suspiciously backtracked on.

This bill is bipartisan, and it is the only legislation on Epstein that has the force of law. It has the votes to pass. The survivors of Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes spoke today at the Capitol demanding this very bill get passed. Republican leaders need to stop standing in the way, and now is their chance.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna) to discuss our proposal, the sponsor of this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it seems lonely over there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Pou).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule is also a vote to create a new select subcommittee to investigate the remaining questions regarding the insurrection on January 6, 2021.

I have a radical idea. Instead of wasting time creating a select subcommittee to investigate January 6, maybe, just maybe, we should read the report that the January 6th Select Committee already finished in 2022. Here it is: thousands of pages, millions of records, testimony from Trump's own people. You could use it as a doorstop, it is so thorough.

But no, Republicans want to rewrite history. If we were all being honest here, that is what this is all about: Pretend January 6 was just a field trip gone wrong; pretend the police weren't bludgeoned, crushed, or tased; pretend the gallows outside this building were just some kind of art installation.

It is insulting. It is a slap in the face to every officer who put their body on the line to save ours. Here is the kicker: This majority still hasn't even hung the plaque honoring those officers, a plaque required by law--required by law. Instead of a sham committee, how about you get a screwdriver and hang the damn plaque because every day it sits in a box is another day Republicans dishonor the heroes who defended this place.

If they insist on this little circus, at least investigate something real, like why Donald Trump pardoned people who assaulted police officers. One of those men is now serving a life sentence for plotting to murder nearly 40 law enforcement officers and blow up the FBI. His lawyers even tried to argue that Trump's pardon should cover his murder plot.

Another pardoned rioter committed a home invasion less than 4 months

later. I bet those homeowners wish he had been behind bars serving his 8-year sentence for assaulting cops instead of terrorizing their family.

In fact, at least 10 of Trump's pardoned insurrectionists have already been re-arrested, charged, or sentenced for other crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

Quite a record. Maybe we should call this new panel the subcommittee on criminal recidivism by Trump's friends.

But let's be honest. That is not what this is about. This is about distraction, another shiny object, because the majority doesn't want to talk about the things that they are actually blocking, like the bipartisan effort to release the Epstein files.

I will make it simple. Stop rewriting history. Stop wasting time. Stop dishonoring the police. Follow the law, for God's sake. Hang the plaque.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?

He has no more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today is excuse after excuse after excuse, diversion after diversion, but no answers to the questions that I have asked: Why won't the Trump administration release the Epstein files? Why won't the Speaker hang up the plaque honoring the law enforcement officers who defended our democracy on January 6? Why do Republicans continue voting time and time and time again to help their rich and powerful friends?

I know the answer, Mr. Speaker. The answer is because of the man who occupies the Oval Office. Republicans want to let Trump rewrite history to protect the rich and powerful perpetrators of Epstein's crimes, to protect the people who came into this building to desecrate our democracy, and to protect his wealthy donors and Big Oil who want another giveaway.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this is about trust. How can the American people trust Republicans when they promised to release the Epstein files, and then they broke that promise? How can Americans trust Republicans when they claim to support law enforcement, and then they want to rewrite the truth about what happened on January 6? How can we trust Republicans, who want to ignore the fact that Trump pardoned people who brutally assaulted law enforcement officers? How can they be trusted?

How can anyone trust Republicans, when they negotiated spending bills, bills which have become law only to let Donald Trump illegally shut down Federal agencies in direct violation of those negotiations?

I don't trust these guys to tell me the correct time, let alone trust them to do what is right for the American people.

The way to restore trust is simple: Hang the January 6 plaque honoring the officers who defended our democracy on that day, stop the giveaways for those at the top, and release the damn Epstein files. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's horrific crimes were outside the Capitol Building this morning to demand that we pass the bipartisan Khanna-Massie bill to release these files.

Mr. Speaker, we have a bill to do it. Stop delaying, stop obstructing, stop protecting the powerful perpetrators of these crimes, and just release the damn files. I urge a ``hell, no'' on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I am here to talk about a bill that is a matter of fundamental fairness to our veterans and most especially to our combat-injured veterans--a group that should evoke the sympathies and support of our Nation as no other.

I am here to talk about the Major Richard Star Act. Many of my colleagues know about it because 76 Members of this body are cosponsors. That is a large number, but so far, it has not been sufficient to gain even a vote. So I am asking today that that support be turned into action.

This bipartisan legislation will correct one of the deepest injustices impacting disabled veterans. It is labeled by stakeholders as the ``wounded veterans tax.''

The wounded veterans tax, as it stands now, causes more than 50,000 combat-injured veterans who were forced to retire to be barred from a full military pension that they earned or were promised. Let me explain. They are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction of their military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. The reduction, dollar-for-dollar, in their retirement pay is the result of their receiving those disability benefits for their combat injuries.

They are entitled to each of the separate and distinct and different forms of compensation. They have earned both. They are different, separate, and distinct. But right now, under current law, they are deprived of the full benefits of their pension because they were injured in combat. Just to describe this injustice should make our stomachs turn with outrage.

The Major Richard Star Act is really a commonsense bill. We use that word, ``commonsense,'' all the time in this Chamber, but in this instance, it seems particularly appropriate. It would right this longstanding injustice and finally provide these military retirees their full VA disability and Defense Department retirement benefits.

This cause is not only common sense, it is rightfully bipartisan. It has received overwhelming support--those 76 cosponsors in this body but also 304 cosponsors in the House of Representatives--and it is the collectively top priority of the military and veterans services organization communities of the United States. Yet, year after year, this bill has stalled, and detractors have worked to deny a simple vote.

Now, in public--critics have avoided taking a public position on the bill, and they have given lipservice to veterans and advocates requesting their support. What their real reasons are, I can't say.

But the fact of the matter is that these veterans have been denied this simple justice.

And let me speak to those critics.

We can't balance the Federal budget on the backs of combat-injured retirees. Doing so reneges on our obligation. It is a sacred obligation to take care of veterans after their time in uniform.

The bill doesn't create some great, new, overly generous benefit, but it would be enormously impactful and beneficial for each of those retirees who would be affected. The average is about $1,200 a month-- some more, maybe some a little bit less. At $1,200 a month--you can do the math--it is not a fortune, but it would make a difference in the lives of these combat-injured veterans.

It simply ensures that the benefits we have promised and the benefits they have earned are the benefits that are now delivered--it is that simple--not clawed back, as happens now, from the heroes who have sustained those combat-related injuries.

The veterans and heroes involved in these bills are similar to the namesake of the bill, MAJ Richard Star, a decorated war veteran and engineering officer in the Army. He suffered from lung cancer caused by burn pit exposure.

We all know about Iraq and Afghanistan burn pit exposure. We passed the PACT Act to provide care and benefits for victims of those burn pits and exposure to other toxic chemicals.

They led to his retirement and his death in 2021. He was 51 years old. Until

his death, he was a dedicated advocate for his fellow veterans and combat-related disabilities.

His wife Tonya Star walked these halls by his side. She died in 2024. She called my staff days before her passing, in tears because another Congress had ended, in 2024, without a vote on the Richard Star Act. Tonya knew the tremendous difference this legislation would make in the lives of caregivers and widows like her.

It would make a difference also in the lives of veterans like Pat Murray of North Kingstown, RI. Pat is a Marine Corps veteran and a staunch veterans advocate. He recently welcomed a baby boy, and he was forced to move back to Rhode Island to be closer to his family because the injuries he sustained from an IED blast in Iraq made it difficult to care for the newborn.

We need to be very clear. This act won't return his amputated leg. But it can provide him and his family with desperately needed financial certainty, which they deserve, they need, and they were promised.

And it would also help veterans like retired MSgt Gabriel Peterson of Biloxi, MS. He was medically discharged as a result of reactive airway disease. He is on five different drugs. They help with his breathing. It is a struggle for him to live, and this act would ensure that he could provide for his family, even if he is no longer able to be employed.

The stories are powerful, and they are persuasive. They depict the scope and impact of this act, if it were passed, in lifesaving and life-enhancing benefits, and what it will mean to the tens of thousands of veterans across this great Nation.

In fact, these veterans and their families--think of their families-- deserve a lot better. They deserve elected officials who will stand up and deliver for them the benefits they were promised and the benefits they earned; and they need them and deserve them today.

I am asking my colleagues to advance this legislation now. The principle of taking care of our veterans has never been Democrat or Republican. The Veterans' Affair Committee is supremely bipartisan. My hope is that tradition will continue, including today.

So let's put politics aside. Let's put partisan differences aside and finally do the right thing and advance this important legislation for our Nation's veterans.

And so notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032, the Major Richard Star Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I want to respond very briefly to my colleague from Mississippi and my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We have worked together, as he does always, in a bipartisan way on armed services issues. So what I am about to say is not personal to him. In fact, I am willing to bet that it isn't his decision to object here.

But I want to refute two points. No. 1, on double-dipping, let's be clear that these are two separate programs, and the right to payment under each of them is separately deserved. Not everyone who is entitled to retirement pay gets disability benefits. You have to be in that club that nobody wants to join of being combat injured. And it is a separate form of right that in no way involves double-dipping, as we commonly refer to it. The retirement pay is for years of service in the military. VA disability compensation is for the loss of future earnings due to service-connected injuries or illnesses.

And I just want to make clear that this point is really about equity and fairness. Congress eliminated this option for nearly a million veterans who have served 20 years and have a 50-percent VA disability rating or higher. It has already dealt with one segment of this group. This unjust assessment ultimately ought to be eliminated for all the 430,000 veterans who had their military retirement pay clawed back because they are receiving VA disability benefits.

But we are starting here or taking the next step with 50,000 of those 430,000 who, in fairness, should receive both, the retirement pay and disability benefits. And we are doing it because these 50,000 have combat-related injuries.

And as to the total cost--again, not personal to my colleague from Mississippi--but the CBO told us that the Republican-supported tax cuts exploded the deficit by about $3.4 trillion.

Let me repeat that: $3.4 trillion, in large part tax cuts to people who didn't need them.

These veterans need these benefits. This cost is a minuscule fraction of those trillions. This country can afford to do right by these combat-injured veterans. The DOD Office of the Actuary has indicated it could implement the Richard Star Act in an ``actuarially sound manner.''

It is not too costly. It is financially sound. I regret that the Richard Star Act will not be passed today, but I have another measure that I would like to bring to the floor. And it is, with regret, that we are not providing unanimous consent to the bill itself.

And I understand the points made by my colleague, but I would like to present a middle ground. Since we don't have unanimous consent for the Major Richard Star Act today, let's agree to a vote. Let's have a time agreement that would authorize the Senate to take a single up-or-down vote on passage of this bill before the end of the year. This time agreement doesn't guarantee passage. It simply guarantees a vote.

One vote, that is all I am asking. Give us a vote on passage of the Major Richard Star bill, and it would be passage by a 60-vote margin, filibuster proof. If we get 60 votes, the bill passes. If not, it goes down. Let's do it before the end of the year.

I happen to think that we ought to spend whatever time is necessary on this bill. But I understand that leadership is concerned about time. And so my proposal strips away all the time-consuming procedural stuff--I have another word for it--but it allows us to go forward expeditiously. One vote scheduled entirely at Majority Leader Thune's discretion, before the end of the year--it could start and finish in half an hour or 45 minutes.

Surely, the Republican leadership can spare that short time, scheduled at

their discretion, to give these combat-injured veterans a single vote on this bill before the end of the year.

And so notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader but no later than December 31, 2025, the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032; further, that there be up to 2 hours of debate on the bill, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, all without further intervening action or debate and no amendments or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage.

Mr. President, I respect the points that are being made by my friend from Mississippi. In fact, we share support for every one of those armed services measures that he had described, whether it is bolstering our nuclear force, providing for more drone protection, increasing well-deserved compensation for our military men and women, and it is the reason why he has led, and I have supported, the current National Defense Authorization Act that, hopefully, will be approved by this body within days.

Where we differ is, I think, that I believe that the $9 billion or $10 billion that would go to ensure fundamental fairness to our military is there or a great nation should ensure it is there when we are talking about the trillions that we will spend on many other things, some of them very worthwhile, but, in my view, none more worthwhile than doing right by these veterans.

It isn't double dipping. It isn't overly generous. It isn't going to break the bank, so to speak. To the Federal Government as a whole, with its trillions of dollars, it is a miniscule fraction; to those veterans, it is not only a matter of quality of life and sometimes survival, it is fundamental fairness.

They were promised. They have earned it. They deserve it. They need it. They ought to have it.

And this measure simply would assure a vote--a vote. We ought to face our responsibilities. Maybe my colleagues, even though 76 of them have cosponsored--that is three quarters of this body--maybe it would still fail for whatever reason. But I would like to take my chances. And I assure my colleague from Mississippi, who I think supports the basic goal from what he has said, that I will continue fighting and working for this measure to pass. I know there is deep and broad support in this body for it, and I look forward to a time when he and I will be on the floor together, both of us, supporting this measure in a vote.

I am not giving up, and I am very hopeful that this cause will continue to be bipartisan.

Mr. President, colleagues, I think there is a tendency in this place, but probably in the country, writ large, to compartmentalize each news cycle, to get outraged by every new contest to free speech or to the rule of law or to the power of Congress, but to really never see the full picture. Yesterday's assault on a particular democratic norm is forgotten, and we just wake up the next day to some new outrage.

And I know that when people like me start talking about creeping authoritarianism in America, a lot of my Republican colleagues tune out. They think it is hyperbole or just politics. But I think it is time for all of us--Republicans and Democrats--to really step back and come to terms with the full picture of what is happening right now in America.

I know that there are many Republicans in this Chamber who are not ready to give up on democracy, but there are a group of radicals surrounding the President who have convinced him to operationalize a plan that is designed to try to crush political opposition and dissent in this country.

When democracies die, sometimes it is in a coup; sometimes it is through violence; sometimes it is the occupation of the Parliament building; sometimes it is the cancellation of elections. But normally, that is not how democracies wither and vanish.

In countries that have lost healthy democracy, normally what happens is that, over time, the regime--the party in power--just contracts the space for dissent, for speech, for political opposition such that, while elections still happen, the opposition party can never win. The rules get rigged, essentially, so that the party in power never ever loses. That is the plan. That is what President Trump and the radicals around him are trying to do to America.

I know that many of my colleagues aren't on board for this plan, but I worry that many of my colleagues refuse to see it in its totality because they deal with one outrage at a time. They justify one assault at a time without seeing the full scope of it.

We aren't on the verge of an authoritarian takeover; we are in the middle of it. Now, it is not a fait accompli. It is not certain to be successful. But if we aren't clear-eyed about what is happening, then we have no chance to arrest it.

If my Republican colleagues don't force themselves to pull back and see the totality of what is happening to the political opposition--it is hard to see because it is not happening to you. It is happening to your colleagues. You are not in jeopardy of being arrested; my colleagues are. Your allies are not being taken down off the air; ours are.

If we don't all pull back and see this for what it is, we will wake up, and there will be a day where our democracy is gone. And so I want to talk to my colleagues today about the totality of this plan, and it really happens in five steps.

The first step is to convert the justice system into a political witch hunt operation. Every totalitarian relies on the justice system to punish dissent, but also to immunize illegality for loyalists. That is the deal you get in a totalitarian state: If you speak out against the government, well, then the legal system comes crashing down on you. But if you are loyal to the government, then you can get away with crimes.

We are seeing this at scale right now. The indictment of James Comey for no crime--not a single prosecutor in that office in Virginia would sign the indictment--not a single one--until President Trump sent his personal lawyer to take over that office because only she would sign the indictment.

We see this in the arrests that are being readied for at least one Democratic Senator, for the Soros family, for the attorney general of New York--for behavior that is not criminal; for behavior that apparently, reportedly, has been engaged in by plenty of other people.

But you also see it in the way that it ultimately plays out in a very quiet way. The goal here is not to arrest everybody that opposes Donald Trump. The idea here is to just put enough fear into the ranks of those who might speak truth to power that they stay quiet, and it is undoubtedly happening. There are undoubtedly people in this country who see what is being threatened to Senator Schiff, what has happened to James Comey, and they have just decided to remain quiet. This is a tried and true tactic of a totalitarian state, is that they threaten people with arrests if they speak up, and lots of people just decide not to speak up in the first place.

But what also happens is that if you are loyal to the regime, you get away with crimes. See what happened to the mayor of New York Eric Adams. He allegedly had committed a crime. He had committed significant corruption but was exonerated by President Trump only after the mayor pledged his political loyalty to the President. In fact, one of the President's representatives and the mayor went on television to essentially publicly do the handshake--loyalty from the mayor to the President and exoneration of corruption from the government to the mayor. This is how totalitarian regimes control speech: They punish, through the legal system, dissent. They immunize corruption amongst those who are loyal.

The second part of the plan is to eliminate free press and replace it with state-run media. Now, I don't know that I would go so far to say we have state-run media in the United States yet, but there is an attempt underway to try to use the vast regulatory powers of the administration to censor media. And, again, the administration isn't hiding it. They are going on TV and celebrating the fact that, in the latest instance, they threatened to pull the licenses of TV stations that didn't take off the air one of the President's loudest critics.

But we also see it through the consolidation of media into the hands of allies of the President. One family that has just taken control of a major media group that owns, amongst other properties, CBS is looking to also take

control of CNN and may have an ownership stake and a control stake in TikTok. That family has shown a willingness to censor content, pulling Stephen Colbert off the air and to put in place, essentially, Trump- approved censors for their future news content.

So you get to state-run media not necessarily through the state owning and operating media, but by the state using its regulatory powers--its control of licenses and mergers--to make clear to the billionaire class that they can own media, that they can make a lot of money off of media, but only if it propagates Trump's narrative and suppresses criticism. It is happening right now. We are watching it happen.

The third step in the plan is to militarize law enforcement. The deployment of the military to Chicago and to Portland, to Los Angeles, is illegal. It is illegal. But it is designed to try to, once again, quell dissent and protest. This isn't about public safety. This is about political intimidation.

And you are just naive if you think that folks aren't going to be a little bit less interested in showing up at a protest if they are worried about getting roughed up by law enforcement. You are naive to think that there isn't an impact on speech when the military is patrolling your streets. The signal that is being sent is that, if you speak up in opposition to this President, you are going to be greeted by troop deployments and tear gas and military helicopters.

The fourth step in this plan is seizing control of government spending and taxation, and here is where I fail to understand why there isn't bipartisan agreement, why we don't join hands. Our Founding Fathers saw what the British King did: using taxation and spending in order to compel loyalty to Crown, in order to punish the colonists when they rose up in defense of their rights. And so when they wrote the Constitution, they deliberately put the spending and taxation powers not in the hands of the Executive but in the hands of Congress, where every faction is represented; thus, this body is in a position to broadly protect the rights of all people.

Trump is seizing spending power from us, canceling grants unilaterally--most recently brazenly deciding to refuse to spend money only in the States represented by Democrats. The day after the shutdown began, they announced that they were, first, suspending billions of dollars' worth of projects in just one city, New York City--not coincidentally represented by the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate.

And then, hours after, they released a list of canceled energy projects. They listed the States that they were being canceled in. Every single one of those States was represented by two Democratic Senators.

Everybody knew what was happening. It was an effort to use the spending power, seized by the Executive, to punish--to punish-- representatives of the people who oppose the President politically.

And then the fifth part of the plan is to rig the rules when the rules don't work for you. This is happening in the way that President Trump is going State by State and demanding that congressional lines be redrawn in the middle of a 10-year cycle in which, traditionally, we leave lines as they are. Why? He has, again, been totally honest and transparent about it. He just wants more Republicans elected. Even if the majority of people in a particular State favor Democrats, he wants the lines drawn in a way that would elect more Republicans to Congress. Now, in this case, it has, of course, forced Democratic States to do the same, but it was Donald Trump who started this cycle of changing the rules in order to make sure that his party stays in power and that he stays in power no matter how unpopular he gets.

You see the same thing happening with respect to the control of information. Totalitarian states can't accept truth. They can't accept truth, so they try to destroy truth. Well, that is what Donald Trump is doing by banning reporters from the White House who don't toe the Trump or MAGA line. That is what they are doing in saying to reporters at the Department of Defense that you can't report on military operations unless you are given preapproval. That is what happened to the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. When the labor statistics showed that the economy wasn't good, that guy got fired and was replaced by somebody who would issue fake numbers that made the economy look better.

You convert the justice system so that it pursues your political enemies and exonerates your political loyalists for crimes. You eliminate the free press, and you replace it with state-run or state- influenced media. You militarize law enforcement. You seize control of government spending and taxation. You rig the rules of democracy in your favor.

You can't see the indictment of Comey, the cancelation of Kimmel, and the troops in Chicago as different events. They are all part of the same story. They are all part of a plan--a well-thought-out plan--to try to destroy American democracy and create a new set of rules that will allow Trump and his allies to rule forever.

I know this sounds extreme. It is. But, if you connect the dots, if you allow yourself to see the whole story--the totality--of this story, you will see the grave danger that we are in. I know that it is often easiest for all of us, but probably especially for supporters of the President who still support democracy, to just assume the best, instead of assuming the worst, or to just kind of close the door and batten down the hatches until the storm leaves town.

But think about how we will feel if this 250-year democratic experiment disappears on our watch and we didn't do all we could as a body and as a citizenry simply because we didn't want to face the hard reality. The authoritarian takeover isn't coming; it is here. We are in the middle of it, but it is not too late for everybody to see it and for us to stop it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today because the American people deserve affordable healthcare, and they deserve a government that works for them--not a government of threats, not a government of bullies. They deserve a government that comes together in a bipartisan way to find solutions to the problems and challenges they face.

Sadly, right now, we are on day 18 where the Republicans in the House of Representatives have not reported to work--day 18. I went over there this morning, and there are literally more statues of former Republican leaders than there are actual Republican House Members in the entire House. I

walked down the hallways. I went to the door. I went to see if anyone was there. There is no one there. There are just a bunch of statues of former leaders.

We need real leaders right now over in the House that are willing to sit down and negotiate with Members of the Senate and, yes, with the President--not to be rubberstamps of the President but to actually come back and say ``This is what I am hearing from my constituents'' because we know what they are hearing. We have seen the numbers. And some of them have been willing to say it--some of the House Members on the Republican side and some of the Senators.

Three-fourths of the people on the Affordable Care Act plans, according to a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation, three-fourths of them are in States won by President Trump. The vast majority of them are in red congressional districts.

So we know what they are hearing because it is what I have been hearing. Some of the people are already getting notices in some States--like in Senator Warnock and Senator Ossoff's State of Georgia-- and they are seeing a doubling of their premiums or a tripling of their premiums.

I have heard the proposed numbers in the State of Minnesota, and it is not pretty.

A few weeks ago, I went on a 13-county rural tour in my State--I visit all 87 counties every year--and I met with soybean farmers. One of them told me that what he was seeing, between the tariffs drying up his market--60 percent of the soybeans in Minnesota are exported around the world. We are proud of that. We feed the world. Those markets have dried up. They can't sell their soybeans. They can't get a good price for their soybeans. I heard the same thing from our corn growers.

So when you look at what is happening with their markets and then you look at what is happening with their input costs for things like fertilizer because of the Trump tariffs and you look at the increases for them in their daily living expenses--like electricity bills and grocery bills--because of these tariffs and, yes, these healthcare premiums--you look at this, and one soybean farmer told me this is the perfect storm of ugly.

So what should our answer be--to stay away like these Republican House Members have done because they are afraid to have a vote on the release of the Epstein files? That soybean farmer is like: What? Go take care of your business. Your job is to come here and help me.

Families' budgets are being squeezed. The President promised he would bring down prices on day one, but instead, it is day 261, and the opposite is happening, especially with healthcare.

This isn't a December problem or a January problem; this is a ``now'' problem because November 1 is the date. November 1 is the day when these plans that are called different things in different States--in my State, it is called MNsure--when these plans, which over 25 percent of our farmers are on, for one thing, and a whole bunch of small business owners--they are not working at some big corporation. They do not have the option of getting their plans that way. Instead, they rely on these types of plans from the State. Ours existed even before the Affordable Care Act, but it is one of those Affordable Care Act plans.

So November 1 is when that marketplace opens up, and then they have to decide--they can't afford a doubling of the premiums. That is what this fight is about.

A poll published last week found that 78 percent of Americans think we should extend the ACA tax credits, including significant majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

Why don't my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and my colleagues who aren't here over in the House--Republicans--why don't they see this as an opportunity to do something good, to come to the table and do something good? That is what this is about to me. I thought that is what we were elected to do, but, instead, what do we see?

According to Minnesota's health insurance marketplace, a 30-year-old in Mower County--that is one of our more rural counties kind of near the Iowa border--earning $39,000 per year would see their premium increase from $77 per month this year to $225 a month for the same plan--no extra bells and whistles; the same plan.

A family of three in Roseau County--that is way up north--with an annual income of $106,000--this is a family of three--would see their premium jump from $675 a month to $1,100 a month--an annual increase of more than $5,000.

A 60-year-old married couple in Bemidji earning $85,000 per year-- this is in the middle of our State, a beautiful lakes area. It is the home of Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox. They just dealt with a horrible, horrible storm, and their town showed this incredible resilience.

A 60-year-old married couple in Bemidji earning $85,000 per year will see their premium climb from less than $500 per month to $1,700 per month. That means an additional $15,000 next year for the same coverage. These increases are going to force people to make a decision.

My rural hospitals told me--behind closed doors, some of it--they said: So we have a whole bunch of people that are going to be hurt by these Medicaid cuts that were in the budget bill this summer, and we have a whole bunch of problems because $500 billion in Medicare cuts was automatically triggered by that Big Beautiful Bill, as it is called--or ``Big Beautiful Betrayal'' of a bill.

Five hundred billion in Medicare cuts was triggered why? Because the debt went up so high because of all the tax cuts for the wealthiest. That is just in law. If you put up the debt that much, you are going to get Medicare cuts that aren't going to hit individuals--they will eventually--but they are going to hit these hospitals. I say ``eventually'' because there is not going to be anyplace to go get your healthcare if you are in a rural area and these hospitals and clinics start closing down.

So on top of all that--Medicaid and Medicare--then you layer on these Affordable Care Act issues. What the people--the doctors and nurses-- told me is that because that is how so many of their patients get their healthcare, if they don't get their insurance, which some of them just won't be able to afford unless we do something about it, which is fully within our power to do--like, literally, you can take that money that was going to go to Argentina and screw over our soybean farmers in Minnesota, that $20 billion--I have no idea why that was a good idea-- you can take that money, and that is going to pay for a big chunk of just the first year of these tax credits for regular Americans and not screw over our soybean farmers.

So, anyway, they told me that if you make sure these people still have insurance, that is a huge deal to these rural hospitals. It means that they can maybe just barely eke by and make it. Otherwise, people are going to get rid of their insurance, and they are going to show up at the emergency rooms because they are not going to be getting not just primary care but elective surgeries and regular things they should be getting because they don't have the insurance, and they are going to show up at the emergency rooms, and then the hospitals are going to be paying for that care. That is what we are dealing with here.

These increases are going to force people across the country to make these impossible decisions.

A constituent of mine was caught off guard by a $2,000 premium increase.

A family of four is considering downgrading their insurance plan.

A father expects that his family will owe $16,000 more next year.

One woman currently saves more than $450 per month because of the ACA tax credit. She is retired. She is single, so she does not have any additional income coming in. That gives her $5,400 extra per year, and that is before you factor in--this is important for people to know because everyone is having trouble with what is going on in the insurance market right now--that is before you factor in what is expected to be a 21-percent increase in the premium.

Another constituent shared that her biggest fear is affording healthcare for her family. She said: Please keep up the fight for the ACA subsidies. Every day, the cost of just living goes up. I am worried for my family.

We know our healthcare system is far from perfect. There are many steps we should take to improve it. I could

spend the whole day giving some ideas that would be constructive.

One of the things that I finally got passed into law that I spent years working on and leading the bill--a negotiation of prices under Medicare.

Congress, before I got here, somehow locked itself into what the prices should be under Medicare, and you could see people and our worthy veterans under the VA getting much better deals on their drugs than all of the seniors in America. Why? Because the VA was negotiating prices, and Medicare was banned from negotiating.

So we opened that up on at least 10 drugs in the first year, drugs like Xarelto and Eliquis and Januvia and Jardiance--big, big drugs with big populations of people that use them--and we got that negotiation started during the last administration and were able to get some remarkable savings.

But there should be many more savings. These are supposed to be negotiated--15 more drugs and then 15 more drugs and then 15 more drugs--and I will tell you right now, I am watching to make sure that happens. But there could be a lot more we could do on the front of pharmaceuticals and many other areas of healthcare. But, instead, the least we can do right now is make sure that people aren't going to end up bankrupt--small-farm bankruptcy is at a 5-year high right now--who live in rural areas.

We are asking our colleagues to come to the table. We are asking the Republicans in the House of Representatives to return to work so that they are not outnumbered by a bunch of statues that have been sitting there for a hundred years in the Rotunda. We would like the real Representatives to come back and join us in negotiating to end the shutdown, which is what we want, but also to do something to help Americans with their healthcare.

I yield the floor.