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 Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are working more and more for less and less.

Almost every day, I speak with young people who can't afford to start a family, can't buy a house, and can't get ahead. I hear it from seniors who are struggling to survive on fixed incomes. I see it with my own eyes. Moms and dads are putting items back on the shelves in the grocery store because they can't afford them. Parents can't go back to work because they can't afford childcare. People's health insurance premiums are doubling and tripling because this majority has failed to act.

During election season, we heard from Trump and Republicans who swore up and down they would bring down prices. They promised the American people they would reverse inflation and focus like a laser on affordability. They have broken that promise. They have betrayed the American people.

If you want more evidence of that, look at the bills on the floor today: more garbage, more culture war crap, more bills written by this Republican majority of, by, and for the billionaire class.

Republicans moved Heaven and Earth to give tax breaks to the rich and powerful. That got done in a nanosecond.

If you are a regular person staring down next year's healthcare premium hikes and deciding whether to pay a thousand bucks more or put food on the table, the answer you get back from the Republicans is: Let them eat cake.

We are barreling toward another shutdown at the end of January. We could have spent the last 2 months working on passing the nine appropriations bills Republicans still need to pass to stop another shutdown. Instead, they went on a taxpayer-funded paid vacation for 8 weeks.

Let me just say, because we are debating a rule to consider these eight bills, this rule sucks. There are eight closed rules, no amendments, no changes allowed on the floor, take it or leave it. If you are keeping count at home, that is 80 completely closed rules this Congress, the most ever in a year.

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the gentlewoman because last night in the Rules Committee she said that five of these bills didn't receive any amendments. That is because she didn't ask for any. When you don't send an amendment deadline, everyone knows you are doing a closed rule.

My Republican colleagues have been complicit in these 80 closed rules. Nearly 9 out of 10 times, the majority party has not been allowed to bring amendments to the floor. They are getting blocked by their own leadership time and time again. How does that feel?

Again, this is a terrible rule, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, those are a lot of words to justify the most closed Congress in history, the most authoritarian Congress in history. It would make Putin blush.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 6074, which would extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits for 3 years, through 2028.

We are in the midst of a healthcare crisis. More than 20 million Americans who get their healthcare on the ACA exchanges are going to see their premiums skyrocket next year. That includes 250,000 people in my home State of Massachusetts, who are paying lower premiums and copays due to these tax credits, which Democrats created in 2021 and which are set to expire at the end of the year.

Let me read you some of the stories from folks in my district: I just received my letter, and my monthly costs have gone from $1,287 to $3,026 for next year. As a working family with a daughter who has an autoimmune disease, we are struggling, and I am working 50-plus hours a week just to pay the insurance.

Here is another one: With the Health Connector, I was paying $264 per month, acceptable seeing that I am healthy but not young. Without the advanced premium tax credit, my monthly premium will be just over $800 per month. I can't and I won't pay that. I will go without.

This is happening across the country, and for the sake of millions of Americans and their healthcare, I urge my Republican colleagues to support this bill and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, shortly on the floor, Republicans are about to finally bring up the Massie-Khanna bill to release the Epstein files. We had to drag this leadership here kicking and screaming.

I appreciate their sudden and stunning change of heart on this issue, but I state for the record that the Republican leadership has tried to block this day for months and months and months.

I also want to state for the record that Donald Trump could release these files on his own, today, right now, right this very second. He doesn't need to wait for Congress to pass the bill. He could release the files himself, but he won't. That is why we are here, because he refuses to act.

Meanwhile, the Republican majority has blocked transparency at every turn. They stonewalled in committee. The gentlewoman from North Carolina and every Republican on the Rules Committee voted nine times to block my amendment to release the Epstein files, nine times.

Republicans were so afraid of my amendment that Speaker Johnson shut down the Rules Committee and sent us home early in July, and then he refused to swear in a new Member of Congress for weeks because she promised to be the 218th signature to force this bill forward. Only four Republicans signed the discharge petition. Every single Democrat signed on.

In a few moments, I am going to yield time to Representative Massie, who has been the Republican leader of this effort alongside Representative Khanna on the Democratic side. Here is why I am doing that: This bill should be getting a full hour of debate on the floor, but Speaker Johnson, I guess at Donald Trump's direction, is throwing every procedural gimmick at the wall to see what sticks, and he is trying to limit debate on the floor because for some reason he is very, very afraid of talking about this. That is why I am donating a significant chunk of my time to Members who have been silenced by the Speaker for the terrible crime of demanding truth and transparency.

If I had to guess, most Republicans will probably vote in favor of releasing the files, but they are not voting ``yes'' because their conscience changed. They are voting ``yes'' because Donald Trump tells most of them how to vote, and he realized he has lost on this one.

He says that people who support this bill ``betrayed the entire Republican Party.'' Really, really? How is accountability for a pedophile, something Donald Trump campaigned on, how is that now a betrayal? This was his issue, his idea. He ran on releasing the files.

By the way, to those who say that Biden should have released these files, let me just address that right now. You are right, he should have, but he didn't make it his number one issue, and he is not the President right now. Donald Trump is. He could have released the files at any point over the last 11 months, but he has not.

Republicans have had months to sign the discharge petition. They had months to bring this bill to the floor, but this leadership has chosen obstruction. They don't want to pass this bill. They don't even want to talk about it on the House floor, and so that is why debate matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman doesn't oppose this? Boy, she has a funny way of showing it. I gave the gentlewoman nine opportunities in the Committee on Rules to bring this measure to the floor. I gave her nine opportunities. Every time I brought up an amendment, she voted it down. There were nine opportunities. To say that somehow this is always what they wanted, I don't know, but that doesn't pass the smell test.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman says that we should just trust her and Republican leadership. After what I saw unfold over these last several months, I can't. There was obstruction and the use of every maneuver possible to avoid this moment we have here today.

I say for the record: It doesn't matter whether there are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents implicated in these files. We believe in accountability for everybody who abuses young women. We believe in justice. That is kind of what is uniting many of us on this side of the aisle here today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Khanna for his leadership. I thank Representative Massie, Representative Greene, and Representative Mace for their courage and for their willingness to stand up for what is right. We don't agree on very much, but we do agree there ought to be accountability when young women are abused. That is what this is about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) to control the time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say how much I admire the courage of my Republican colleagues who are beside me here today.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is not about us, and it is not about politics. This is about the survivors, young girls who were exploited by powerful men. These were men who used money and power to take advantage of girls, some as young as 11 years old.

The President of the United States calls it all a hoax. Can you imagine that? What an evil and disgusting thing to say. These young girls, now women, the survivors, what happened to them was horrific. They were sexually abused, many of them for years, and the President of the United States calls it all a hoax.

What kind of messed up, sick-in-the-head, immoral person says something like that? This bill is about making sure that powerful men are held accountable. It is about demanding truth and transparency for the American people.

Republican leaders in this House lost control of the story. They lost the ability to hide behind procedure, and they lost the luxury of pretending that they were ever on the right side. The American people see it. Survivors see it, and history will see it.

Listening to the Speaker of the House's press conference today, it sounds like he basically wants to kill this whole thing. He is trying to obstruct and derail the process.

Why the hell is he fighting so hard to do the opposite of what the survivors want? What an awful, awful thing to do.

Let us release the files. Let's give survivors the transparency they have long been denied. Let us take back power from the rich, billionaire elites who think that they can do whatever they want with no justice or accountability. Let's remember exactly who had to be dragged here under duress and who stood up from day one to demand the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, earlier today, Donald Trump shared a post on Truth Social calling for Democratic Members of Congress to be hanged. He also posted a message that said:

SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!

Let's be crystal clear. The President of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials. This is an outright threat, and it is deadly serious. We have already seen what happens when Donald Trump tells his followers that his political opponents are enemies of the state. Every time Donald Trump posts things like this, he makes political violence more likely.

None of us should tolerate this kind of behavior. We all remember what January 6 was like. We lived through January 6. We have lived through the assassinations and attempted assassinations this year. We have Members whose families had to flee their homes.

When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen. He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline.

Every Senator, every Representative, every American--regardless of party--should condemn this immediately and without qualification, because if we don't draw a line here, there is no line left to draw.

Who would have thought the President of the United States would be saying his opponents should be hanged? It is outrageous. No President has ever stooped as low as Donald Trump--none. He has made political violence a feature of his politics, and if we don't draw a line here, there is no line left to draw.

And, today, he crossed yet another line that no democracy can afford to

tolerate. He must be condemned forcibly, loudly, and without excuses before someone takes his words as permission to do the unthinkable. Anything less enables the flames of hatred to grow and spread.

Affordability

Mr. President, on affordability, in less than a year, Donald Trump has gone from promising to bring costs down ``on day one,'' as he said, to claiming that the word ``affordable'' is some kind of ``new word'' and even a ``con job.'' That is right. Donald Trump doesn't even want to see the word ``affordable'' on his teleprompter because it will send him into a tailspin.

Poor guy, he can't reduce prices. He doesn't care about prices, but he doesn't want to see the word because it will send him into a tailspin. If there was ever ostrich-like behavior, that was it.

Here is what he said yesterday at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum:

That's the new word they use, ``affordability''. . . . We

are bringing prices down, but they came up with a new word:

``affordability.''

What the heck is Donald Trump talking about? Does he think ``affordable'' is some kind of new made-up fancy word? Doesn't he realize that working and middle-class Americans talk about affordability all the time: I can't afford this; I can't afford that.

Is he trying to hide the problem by denying the word?

Does he think that rising grocery prices, rising rent, rising healthcare are all some kind of lie invented by Democrats?

Does he think, if the word is abolished, that people will then automatically, magically, be able to afford all the things that they can't afford anymore?

When was the last time Donald Trump actually spoke to someone earning a middle-class income or someone who earned minimum wage?

If Donald Trump actually spent time talking to real people around the country, instead of bragging about ballrooms and jetting around the world in luxury, he would realize there is nothing made up about the affordability crisis.

These kinds of comments from Donald Trump give the game away. He has absolutely no conception of what everyday Americans are going through right now. He is on another planet.

It has gotten so bad that he doesn't even want to listen to people talk about rising costs.

Here is what he said just a few days after the recent election:

I don't want to hear about the affordability.

Well, he is going to hear about affordability from the American people, above all, because they can't afford a whole lot of stuff.

And when Donald Trump wants to know why his popularity is sinking, it is because of things like this.

The No. 1 crisis that the average American feels when they sit down and try to figure out how to pay bills is they can't afford them, and Donald Trump says he doesn't want to hear about affordability.

Do you hear that, America? Donald Trump doesn't even want to hear your worries about your high rent or high grocery costs. Don't even mention that they are ``affordable'' because that word sends him into a rage.

It is unbelievable. This President--unbelievable--he thinks that by saying you abolish a word, you abolish the problem.

And the magnitude of this problem is so large. Ask America, Trump: Is your healthcare too expensive?

They will say: Yes.

Are your groceries too expensive?

They will say: Yes.

Can you afford your healthcare?

They will say: No.

Can you afford your groceries? Can you afford the cost of electricity? Can you afford to buy a new car?

They will say: No.

And he doesn't want to hear about it.

He says extending the ACA premium tax credits, which would save people thousands a month, is nothing but a waste of time. This President is so out of touch with Americans, and, every day, more and more Americans are realizing how out of touch he is when he says things like this.

Healthcare

Mr. President, let me talk now about HSAs and the healthcare debate.

After Democrats pushed Republicans for months to fix ACA premiums, Americans are now about to fall off a healthcare cliff, and Donald Trump has no plans to fix it whatsoever.

Maybe he thinks healthcare is affordable for people. It isn't for most.

If Donald Trump were smart, he would have worked with Democrats at the drop of a hat to extend the ACA tax credits for at least another year. We offered him that. But, instead, he is telling Republicans to push half-baked ideas like health savings accounts and direct checks.

Let me say this very plainly. Donald Trump's Republican ideas about HSAs are nonstarters for Democrats because they are completely flawed and woefully insufficient for our Nation's healthcare problems. If Republicans push this flawed policy, they will go nowhere in the Senate.

First, neither HSAs nor a lump-sum check will do anything to help people afford insurance. If your insurance plan goes from $1,000 a month to $4,000, a one-time check isn't going to go very far. For cancer patients who pay thousands of dollars for lifesaving medications in one month, their HSAs will do nothing--nothing--to help them afford care.

Second, implementing changes this complex would be practically impossible before the end of the year. People are signing up for health insurance right now, and health savings accounts cannot be used to pay for premiums, period.

Third, Republicans talk about ``waste, fraud, and abuse'' and have railed on insurance companies. But the Republican policies will do nothing--absolutely nothing--about either problem. So either Republicans don't understand how healthcare works or their complaints about fraud and abusive insurance companies are cynical and disingenuous.

That is why Democrats insist that one of the best things we can do right now is extend the ACA premium tax credits, because when people talk about costs, healthcare is near the top of the list of their worries, if not at the very top.

It is shameful that Donald Trump and Republicans have given up entirely on solving the healthcare premium crisis. When people's monthly payments spike next year, they will know it was Republicans that made it happen. And more than that, they will know Democrats are the ones who are fighting on their behalf to lower costs and rebuild the sunny American optimism our country desperately needs.

Anti-Semitism

Finally, on anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism in America has reached a dangerous tipping point. Jewish Americans are facing threats, harassment, and violence at levels we have not seen in generations.

As I have said many times in this Chamber, anti-Semitism is the canary in the coal mine. Where there is anti-Semitism, there lurks White supremacy and other pernicious forms of hate.

Three days ago, the President of the United States declined to condemn Nick Fuentes' hateful views and defended Tucker Carlson's decision to give Fuentes a platform. The President was asked about his thoughts on the interview. He declined to condemn Nick Fuentes.

That is disgusting. For Donald Trump to excuse and protect the spread of Nick Fuentes' ideology confirms what many of us have long said: White supremacy and anti-Semitism are taking deep roots, unfortunately, within the Republican Party.

Just as we saw from the leaked texts of young Republicans, just as we saw from text messages of administration officials, the Nick Fuentes saga on the right reveals that anti-Semitism and White supremacy have been growing with disturbing currency within the rightwing and within the rightwing of the Republican Party.

But I know this is not true of everyone on the Republican side, especially not for many Republicans in this Chamber. Therefore, I will soon lead a resolution, here in the Senate, rejecting Nick Fuentes and his White supremacist views and condemning Carlson's platform of hate and condemning White supremacy whenever and wherever it occurs.

In the coming days, I will work to grow support for my resolution so the Senate can take a clear stand against hatred and anti-Semitism. I hope my

Republican colleagues will join me in this effort and cosponsor this resolution.

Calling out anti-Semitism should not be a partisan issue. In fact, when we refuse to condemn anti-Semitism, when we stay silent and fail to reject anti-Semitic rhetoric, when we normalize hateful figures spewing disgusting anti-Semitism, that is when anti-Semitism spreads throughout society like a poisonous wildfire.

Americans don't want to see that happen. So my resolution will give every Senator--every single Senator--a chance to make an important stand against hatred. The country must see us unite and fight this awful form of bigotry.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 130) 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 ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 130.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 130, which would repeal the Bureau of Land Management's misguided resource management plan, or RMP, amendment for the Buffalo Field Office in Wyoming, which was finalized in the twilight hours of the Biden-Harris administration.

Wyoming's Powder River Basin currently supplies 40 percent of the Nation's coal. The RMP amendment in question effectively halted future Federal coal leasing across a region in Wyoming larger than New Jersey and located in the heart of America's coal country. Without repeal, the RMP amendment will end coal production in the region entirely by 2041 and close 12 active mines.

The RMP amendment is a death blow to America's energy security, Wyoming's workers, and the economic backbone of the State itself.

It is projected that U.S. electricity demand will grow by as much as 128 gigawatts through 2029, and global energy demand is expected to double by 2050.

Coal is reliable, affordable, and essential to meet the increasing power demands of the AI revolution and advanced manufacturing. The RMP amendment locked up an astonishing 48 billion short tons of coal. That is enough to meet U.S. coal demand for the next 116 years.

Mr. Speaker, 92 percent of Wyoming's coal is exported to other States, helping keep the lights on and utility prices affordable in distant places as far as Texas, Illinois, and my home State of Arkansas.

Nationwide, residential electricity prices have increased by 13 percent since 2022, and overturning misguided policies like this RMP amendment will help make the cost of living more affordable for families across America.

It is time to unleash our domestic resources to put this money back into the pockets of American families by repealing the Biden administration's anti-American energy policies. What is more, instead of working with the State, the Biden administration blatantly ignored local opposition at every stage of this process and rammed this RMP amendment through to appease environmental extremists.

The Biden administration provided a limited opportunity for public comment or engagement on this RMP amendment. Wyoming's Governor, a unified congressional delegation, locally elected officials, Tribes, and local communities all expressed strong opposition to this plan amendment. The previous administration ignored them all.

According to local representatives, it is suspect and disturbing that such a dramatic change to the current land use plan would solicit such little engagement during the public comment period. Campbell and Johnson County commissioners who represent the local communities affected by this plan stated that whatever information they provided to the BLM in this process was ignored by the Federal agency.

Overturning the RMP amendment takes power from bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and returns it to the people of Wyoming.

The BLM also ignored Tribal input in developing this RMP amendment. The Navajo Transitional Energy Company, which is wholly owned by the Navajo Nation, provided detailed comments opposing this amendment. They were all dismissed by the BLM.

In a letter they submitted to the agency, they stated:

``BLM consistently downplayed the reasonably foreseeable negative impacts of the mines' closures on the surrounding social justice communities. And it did not even consider the jobs lost in the downstream communities that rely on the [Powder River Basin] coal.''

Energy security is national security, and Wyoming's energy industry remains indispensable to ensuring that America stays energy dominant. Wyoming's Powder River Basin, with its low-sulfur coal, produces the world's cleanest burning coal. We should be focused on exporting this abundant natural resource to our allies abroad, not burying this baseload power under layers of bureaucracy.

By passing this CRA today, we are advancing President Trump's executive orders on unleashing American energy and reinvigorating America's coal industry. We are also restoring hundreds of millions of dollars in future revenue for Wyoming's K-12 public education system and protecting more than 4,000 high-paying jobs in rural Wyoming.

In conjunction with the pro-energy policies included in the working families tax cut law, this CRA also has the potential to generate more than $260 million for the Federal Treasury.

This CRA helps the U.S. remain energy dominant and will lower prices for families, strengthen our economy, and boost real wages for hardworking men and women. I urge my colleagues to stand with Wyoming, stand with American workers, and stand for energy security by supporting this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the birthday wishes from my friend across the aisle. That means a lot to me.

If I had a birthday wish of my own, it would be to make energy more affordable for the American people, to help the good folks of Wyoming to have a livelihood and to not only keep prices down, but keep good- paying jobs across this country that are in the energy industry. We know that we need more energy going forward. We need more electrons on the grid. We need a larger grid. We need to all work together to do those things, but if this resource management plan amendment by the previous administration was balanced, I would hate to see a heavy- handed resource management plan amendment by the previous administration because this took a sledgehammer to an established industry in the State of Wyoming.

I am sure my distinguished colleague from the great State of Wyoming, Representative Hageman, who is the lead sponsor of this legislation, will go into detail what this would mean to Wyoming if this plan amendment stays in place.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned that U.S. coal is dying. U.S. coal is being murdered. There has been an attack on it for many years, and some people will not stop until they see it gone. That would be to our own demise because we depend so much on the energy not only from coal but from natural gas.

We need more nuclear power. We need more hydropower. We need all kinds of new power, and this isn't the time to be attacking our fuel sources. We will have a debate on the Arctic Slope and the Coastal Plain, but when we are talking about Wyoming, we are talking about coal and really the backbone of our electrical generating and distribution system.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Since my colleague mentioned the SPEED Act, which we will be marking up in committee on Thursday, even though it is not on the floor today, I will put in a shameless plug for our bipartisan legislation that is not only tech neutral, but it is agnostic to the project, the project type.

It would definitely help us produce more energy in America, and it will also help us to build things in America again, something we desperately need to do. We will debate that Thursday, and, hopefully, some day we will be out here debating it on the floor.

This particular RMPA that is on the floor today is because the Biden administration, on their way out, pushed something through by rule that they could never get passed into law. The CRA, I remind you, is so that Congress can exert its legislative authority over an administrative agency or over an administration.

I would remind future administrations not to make dumb rules when they are going out the door or somebody in Congress will be standing here maybe on the other side of the aisle doing a CRA to turn back the rulemaking ability that is not lawmaking, as we are instructed to do in the Constitution as the legislative branch.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the actual RMPA that we are talking about, the CRA on it today, now is the time to unleash American energy. The Buffalo Field Office resource management plan would not only devastate Wyoming's energy workforce but it would raise prices nationwide.

We are in a competition. We are in a competition with China that certainly hasn't backed off on building coal-fired plants. As a matter of fact, they are building at a rate of about one every 2 or 3 days coming online because they know they need reliable energy. They need affordable energy. They need that to establish their manufacturing dominance and to beat us in the race for AI.

Mr. Speaker, we can't allow that to happen. Even though China produces twice as much electricity as we do today, we shouldn't discriminate against any energy source. We should try to produce as much energy as we can so that we can win in that competition.

By passing this CRA, we are restoring the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mandate and preventing future administrations from locking up America's natural resources. The era of curtailing multiple uses of our Federal lands hopefully is over. It is time to usher in a golden age of unleashing our energy and mineral resources.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, as I said on this floor many times, the government shutdown had many victims: air traffic controllers, TSA agents, and many other public servants, and, of course, the American people themselves who were the most affected by this. Thankfully, the bill passed in this Chamber last week put that chaos behind us.

But that wasn't all that it did. In some small way, the difficult time proved that we can work together to do tangible things to reduce healthcare costs in this country. As a matter of fact, I worked on a bipartisan basis to introduce the SMART OTC Act, which became law as part of the government reopening. It was a good part of that reopening.

The bill aims to make lowering the cost of over-the-counter drugs more accessible to patients by eliminating the

redtape at the FDA. We know that when you can take a prescription drug and make it an over-the-counter drug, prices go down. In fact, on average, in cases where we have been able to do this, it reduces prices from 30 to 95 percent. It was an important part of that provision and an example of a way, on a bipartisan basis, we can get some of these kinds of things done. It is an example of how we can attack affordability with commonsense reforms without adding the debt burden to future generations. I am proud to have worked on that bill to make things better for Ohioans and the entire country.

But the shutdown is finally over. I want to thank my Republican colleagues and the Democrats who joined us to help end it. Unfortunately, 40 others chose a different path, and we wasted 43 days from focusing on issues like growing the economy and making things more affordable.

I have been in the Senate less than a year. I wasn't here when Congress passed ObamaCare or the Biden COVID subsidies that have been used to prop up the ACA exchanges. But I want to be part of the solution. I didn't create the problem, but I am here to be part of the solution. We owe it to the American people to honestly assess the problem before we cast a vote on it.

Healthcare costs are rising. The ACA exchange system is too expensive and too complicated, and it has failed to reduce the underlying cost of healthcare. It has failed. The truth is, healthcare inflation is the No. 1 driver of inflation in the 21st century.

Just look at this chart. It shows at the beginning of the century, all inflation and healthcare inflation were about the same. But if you look here around the time that ObamaCare was enacted and went into law, you see the disparity growing. Medical care, medical costs, healthcare costs began to spike and rise.

It was not a solution for healthcare costs and making healthcare more affordable. As a matter of fact, the ACA made care less affordable. And this problem will not be solved by pouring more taxpayer dollars into the coffers of big insurance companies, which has been the path of how ObamaCare has been operated since its enactment.

Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett once said of higher education financing:

Higher education is not underfunded. It is under-

accountable and under-productive.

That is the same that we can now say of the ``Unaffordable Care Act.''

But I believe there is a way forward on the issue that can protect families from punishing premium costs and cut costs driving inflation, and we can do so without putting another $350 billion on the national credit card for a program we know is dysfunctional.

If we want to lower the cost of care, we must deliver reforms that put patients in charge, and I believe we can earn bipartisan support with a straightforward and responsible framework focused on what I call the ``fraud, freeze, and fix'' approach--the ``fraud, freeze, and fix'' approach.

You do this paired with a short extension of the premium subsidies, and we can address the shortcomings of the ACA, lower healthcare costs, and provide the American people with something we can actually implement.

Now, I want to explain what I mean by fraud, freeze, and fix.

First of all, let's deal with fraud. The COVID-era zero-premium subsidies that were created created a cottage industry for abuse. Much of the explosion of fraudulent enrollees is attributable to zero-dollar premiums, which were created in 2021. These plans are fully subsidized by the taxpayers and have created incentives to enroll individuals without their knowledge.

This is how it works. Brokers are enrolling people who never asked for the coverage, one. Two, insurance companies get paid. Three, brokers get a commission. And, four, taxpayers get the bill.

There have been criminal convictions in many States across this country where this fraud is actually being perpetrated, and it needs to be fixed. Hard-working taxpayers have footed the bill for almost $35 billion to insurers who enrolled people who did not use the plan a single time. And we know why--because not all, but some of those people, were enrolled fraudulently.

Requiring everyone receiving a premium tax credit to pay a small amount--at least a small amount--toward their health insurance will help realign the incentives and reduce fraud. It won't be allowable if we construct the program like that. It will make certain that Americans cannot be enrolled in plans without their knowledge or consent. It is an important step if we want to move forward in helping to advance a solution.

The second part is the freeze part. We need to limit the subsidies to where they are right now so it doesn't become a growing burden for the American taxpayer.

The ACA required insurers to lower deductibles, copays, and out-of- pocket costs for enrollees making between 100 percent and 250 percent of the poverty line. However, in 2017, a Federal court ruled that the cost-sharing reduction payments violated the appropriations clause. But insurers are still required to lower the costs, but this results in artificially high premiums. Additionally, because the premium tax credits are calculated against the second lowest cost silver plan, silver loading also supercharged the Federal subsidy spending of this.

It created a system that got gamed, but we can fix it. If we appropriate the cost-sharing reductions, we can lower premiums by 10 to 20 percent, while also delivering savings to the taxpayer.

Freeze it and fix it. That is the freeze part, one of the ways that we cannot put America in a bigger burden and bury the cost to the taxpayers, and we can also lower premiums by saving money.

And then, finally, is the fix portion. This is the most important part because subsidies do not lower costs. They transfer the burden. The fix involves how we actually do reforms that lower the costs. There are several bipartisan healthcare initiatives that address lowering the price of healthcare for our constituents.

Many--``many'' may be an overstatement, but there are several bills right now that I know have bipartisan support that will lower costs that we can accomplish.

For example, price transparency is one of the most bipartisan ideas in this Chamber. It gives patients, employers, and small businesses the power to see what the prices are and then compare them and decide whether or not they can find a better deal for what they are paying. Transparency exposes inflated costs, sparks competition, and makes the other reforms that we are talking about actually work because we can price shop and we can find out whether or not we are being ripped off by what we are paying.

Another example that I know there is bipartisan support for is PBM reform. There has been a bipartisan appetite to lower the cost of prescription drugs by addressing the role that the middlemen play in increasing these costs: bipartisan PBM reform, something we know can reduce costs.

And 340B reform, where both Republicans and Democrats have raised concerns about the 340B program, which is no longer efficient or serving its intended goal of supporting patients and healthcare providers who serve vulnerable populations, like our rural communities.

These are just some of the reforms that have bipartisan support. The list goes on. You can easily find them. We need to do them. It will help drive down the actual costs of healthcare in this country.

Transparency, where I started with this, is a necessary step in the idea of an HSA expansion that President Trump has proposed, where we send money to consumers rather than to the insurance companies. You have to have transparency if you expect people to shop. This will achieve the intended goal of creating consumer choice, and it would protect families from premium shock, and it would protect the Federal budget.

There are two things we need to do: protect families from the inflationary costs that the ACA has created, but also protect the taxpayer.

We didn't get into this mess overnight, and we won't get out of it simply by writing bigger checks. If this debate ends with one side saying extend everything and the other side saying we oppose everything, nothing will get done, and we will have failed the American people.

But we have a chance. What I outlined right there, I know there is bipartisan support for. And there is more,

but that is a start: fraud, freeze, and fix.

We have a chance right now to do better, help families afford coverage, pass bipartisan reforms to cut costs, and refuse to add another $350 billion to the national debt.

I am the newest Member of the U.S. Senate. I wasn't here when Congress created this problem, but these ideas are part of the solution. If anyone in this Chamber is willing to work together, let's go. It is time to do it. The time is now. The American people deserve nothing less. Let's get ready to get the job done. Time was wasted during the government shutdown. There is an urgent need to address these issues. Let's go.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on the campus of Indiana University, a tablet placed on the floor of the student union pays tribute to the men and women who served in the Civil War.

Over 80 years ago, in March 1942, three young Hoosiers stood over that marker. They raised their right hands, and they joined those ranks.

When the oath began, they were college students in the last days of childhood. When it was complete, they were U.S. marines, the first to fight for their country. They joined a long line of American heroes, dating all the way back to the Revolutionary War.

On November 10, 1775, when America contemplated a difficult amphibious assault on the British supply hub in Nova Scotia, the Continental Congress called for the raising of a regiment to execute this difficult expedition.

It required a special breed of warrior, capable of fighting on land and sea. Just the type of men ``acquainted with maritime affairs,'' as the Continental Congress phrased it, were to be found at Tun Tavern, a brewhouse on Philadelphia's waterfront.

On the same day the colonial government passed its resolution, they commissioned Samuel Nicholas to raise this force. Not long after, he walked through the tavern's door and appointed its owner, Robert Mullan, chief recruiter. Together, with the lure of high adventure, mugs full of cold beer, and the call to defend their homes, they enlisted two battalions of men. These men were the first members of the U.S. Marine Corps.

So beginning on that day in Philadelphia, to countless days like the one on the campus of Indiana University, millions of men and women have answered their Nation's call. For 250 years, from the shores of Nassau to the walls of Abbey Gate, they have defended our flag, our way of life, and freedom's friends far from its shores. They have been asked and have often done the impossible.

Because of their daring, their relentlessness, and their ingenuity, the U.S. Marine Corps will always be synonymous with danger--danger to any foe that would threaten the American people. A history of vanquished foes can testify to this: Barbary pirates, whose strongholds Leathernecks marched across the African desert to conquer; British Redcoats mowed down during the Battle of New Orleans when marines formed the center of the city's defense under General Jackson; Mexican cadets, who watches as marines stormed the Halls of Montezuma and raised the stars and stripes over Chapultepec Castle; German soldiers driven from Belleau Wood by the greatly outnumbered 4th Marine Brigade; Japanese troops who bombarded marines as they landed on the black sands of Iwo Jima and then listened from their bunkers as the Americans cheered while six members of the 5th Marine Division planted their flag at the summit of Mount Suribachi; the al-Qaida insurgents killed and captured in Fallujah when the marines fought from street to street, house to house. These and countless other battles were won at terrible cost--tens of thousands of marines killed or wounded in action, widows and widowers, sons and daughters left behind.

The history of the Marine Corps is one of incredible heroism and great sacrifice, but to reduce the Marine Corps to only those virtues is, I believe, to understate its importance in American history. Marines are not simply warriors but, as Ronald Reagan once said, the ideal of ``soldierly virtue.''

On the wall of my office hangs my Mameluke, the curved saber a marine carries at his side. Its history began on the shores of Tripoli when that band of marines took the Libyan port city of Derna. For this victory, they were awarded a Mameluke from an Ottoman prince. Two decades later, it officially became part of a marine officer's dress uniform. Today, its use is largely ceremonial, but if used wisely, it becomes a tool with multiple purposes, like the marine who carries it.

You see, marines are not just taught the virtues that make men and women soldiers--courage under fire, physical strength--but they are also taught the virtues that make them good citizens once their service has ended.

This photograph captures the moment in 1942 when those three young Indiana University students swore the oath--an oath to defend their country. The lives of the men in it, on the battlefield and off of it, demonstrated what it means to be a U.S. marine. They were honorable.

Three years after the picture was snapped, the man at its center wandered around Okinawa. He was searching for souvenirs to send home. He was there as part of the American assault on the island, which was a precursor to attacks on the Japanese mainland.

``The death and destruction leave bad taste in my mouth,'' he wrote, ``and strike me deeply as the horrible part of the war.'' This from Lieutenant Colonel Maurice ``Pat'' David as he wrote his family in Nashville, IN. But his cause was just, he wrote. The bodies of old women and young girls murdered by the Imperial Japanese Army proved it.

He encouraged his parents not to worry about his safety, but months later, he was severely wounded, returned to the States, and later awarded a Purple Heart.

Through his service in the Corps, Lieutenant Colonel David attended law

school in Washington, DC. He then served as a legal officer before retiring from the Marine Corps after 22 years of service. He then returned home to Southern Indiana, settling in Columbus with his wife and daughters.

Lieutenant Colonel David served his country with honor during his time in the Marine Corps, and he did the same for his community after the war concluded. He was elected a superior court judge, practiced law for nearly 20 years, and after retiring, he served as a senior judge. As a lawyer, he was dedicated to his clients. As a judge, he treated the attorneys before him thoughtfully, reasoning they were his clients as well.

When he died in 2016, it was after living a life defined by what he learned in the U.S. Marine Corps: integrity, devotion to justice, service of a cause greater than oneself.

These men were courageous too. In fact, the man to Lieutenant Colonel David's right in the photo was Leonard Alford of Garrett, IN. A year after he stood at the memorial plaque in Bloomington, Alford sat in a tent staring at the Pacific Ocean.

``I know you have been worried because you have not heard from me,'' he wrote to his parents from an island he was not at liberty to name.

He had earned a Silver Star leading the men of the 4th Marine Raider Battalion in the Battle of New Georgia as his men fought across the Solomon Islands. Afterwards, they were redesignated the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, and Alford was made company captain. Members of the original 4th Marine Regiment were lost on Bataan and Corregidor.

``We hope to be able to keep their good name,'' he shared with his family. Because of Captain Alford's courage, they did.

Two years later, when Captain Alford was awarded a second Silver Star, which was turned to Gold, it was awarded posthumously.

In the closing weeks of the Okinawa campaign, he led a charge towards one of the island's remaining Japanese strongholds. Under heavy fire, ignoring his safety, he steadied the marines, ensured their advance, and he sacrificed his life for the success of the campaign and the freedom of his country.

Oh, they were committed too. In fact, the last man in the photo was Cpl John Irwin Murray of Hartford City, IN. In the years after the photo was taken, John Murray remained on campus, drilling with Pershing Rifles.

After graduation, he trained on Parris Island. Corporal Murray spent 16 months on Guadalcanal and Guam. He then deployed to China with the 6th Marine Division.

After the war, he settled in California, where he married and raised a family and worked as an accountant and a teacher.

Unlike the two other marines in this photo, there is very little public information about Corporal Murray's life--occasional updates in the Indiana University alumni magazine on his time in the Marine Corps, his letters home from the Pacific lamenting how few other Hoosiers he met there. But you see, he lived a meaningful civilian life, without fanfare.

Commitment to duty doesn't demand glory or a long military career; it is about showing up when needed and then quietly contributing to society afterwards. Our service continues in the everyday work of building communities and supporting families.

Corporal Murray represents something essential about the Marine Corps. Most of us who serve will return to become good citizens, neighbors, and workers, carrying a sense of duty into ordinary life. That is not less important than the other two paths; it is an expression of the same commitment.

Whether on land, sea, or air, in war or peace, in service or after service, for 250 years, the U.S. Marine Corps has not just trained warriors but made citizens. There are no fiercer defenders of our freedom, no greater examples of the virtues that make our Republic function.

So as we celebrate this great anniversary throughout the month of November, we thank and salute the men in that photo and every member of the U.S. Marine Corps--always faithful--for their service and for their sacrifices. It is impossible to imagine America without the Marines.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, just last month, I stood here on this floor to speak about the dangers of using a congressional resolution of disapproval to change resource management plans for public lands around the country. I described how using congressional resolutions to circumvent public input would upend decades of public land planning practice, how it would put our entire public lands management process at risk.

Since then, Congress has passed three separate congressional resolutions of disapproval to amend resource management plans: one in central and northern Alaska, one in eastern Montana, and one in North Dakota. And now, this week, the Senate will vote on a new resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act--this time for northeastern Wyoming.

While none of those first three have been signed by the President yet, I stand here today, as we prepare to vote on this new congressional resolution of disapproval, to reiterate the message that I shared weeks ago: We cannot and we should not manage our public lands through the Congressional Review Act resolutions.

First, there are very real consequences of reversing decades-old resource management plans, and those consequences could be devastating to communities, to businesses, to jobs, and to our public lands.

Until this year, Congress had never used a congressional resolution of disapproval to change or overturn a land use plan. That is because no administration ever considered land use plans to be ``rules'' under the law.

Let me say that again. No administration, Republican or Democratic, since the Congressional Review Act became law in 1996, has ever treated these land use plans as ``rules.'' Here is what that means: No land use plan has been submitted to Congress, as is required for rules. What does that mean? Because the Congressional Review Act prohibits rules from going into effect until 60 days after they are submitted to Congress and no administration has ever submitted a land use plan to Congress, ever, then if these plans are rules, every land use plan after 1996 never actually went into effect. If they never went into effect, then all of the leases and the permits and the rights-of-way that were issued under them may not be legally valid, throwing us effectively into chaos on our public lands. We are talking about every grazing permit, every energy right-of-way, recreational permit, timber sale, or, yes, oil and gas lease issued under a plan finalized after 1996. All of them are now open to litigation--every single one.

The actual impacts on real Americans could be devastating. For the country, it means potential chaos and uncertainty about what areas are protected on our public lands. The damage could be irreparable to the landscape, to our American birthright in these public lands, and to the communities that depend on these places to make a living.

Secondly, we know that CRAs cut the public out of land use planning. This vote and all the votes like it sweep away years and years of public input in conversations both about the public lands on a particular landscape and public lands nationally.

To put it bluntly, Senate Republicans found a way to rewrite the rules of the game because they didn't like the outcome, and every vote they take to do it is insulting to the public.

Resource management plans are meant to include communities in the process of deciding how to use our public lands, not exclude them. Does that mean everyone agrees with what is in

these plans? No, of course not. I know I don't necessarily agree with every piece of every resource management plan that I have read. But there is a process to address that. It takes work. It takes conversations. It takes advocacy. That process cannot and should not be replaced by one that only involves Senators in Washington, DC, deciding that they know better.

From coming together to decide where to prioritize recreation and where to protect wild game habitat to identifying what lands should be used for grazing or which cultural sites should be protected, resource management plans take time because they incorporate input from the folks who own our public lands--Americans across this country.

When these plans are amended, that takes time too. Resource management plans aren't meant to be one and done; they are meant to evolve over time. Here is how that works when it is done the right way:

First, the public gets a say about what in the plan needs to be updated. Based on those comments, the Bureau of Land Management drafts a plan that includes alternatives. Those alternatives capture the range of public comments, making space for all of the voices that have weighed into the process so far--voices calling for more energy development, voices calling for more conservation, voices identifying important areas for recreation for the benefits of locals and businesses alike.

Once that draft is completed, the public gets another chance to engage. In person and with written comments, the public gets to say what they think the Agency got right and what should be considered moving forward.

Based on that, BLM prepares a final product. When BLM releases the final product, the public has another chance to engage--this time through a formal protest period where individuals can register their objections.

Throughout the entire process, the BLM meets with public land users, with Tribes, with community members, and with the leaders and elected officials in these communities.

The common theme here is clear: When it is done right, the public shapes how public lands are managed. That is not the process being proposed here on the Senate floor. It isn't one that invites the American public in; it is one that shuts them out.

By undoing resource management plans through congressional resolutions of disapproval, Congress is telling Tribal communities that their opinions don't matter about their ancestral lands; they are telling hunters that their opinions don't matter about what lands they just happen to use to fill their families' freezers; they are telling hikers that their opinions don't matter about the routes they know like the back of their hand; telling local communities that the way their land is used is no longer of importance; telling all of us that our voices do not matter when it comes to the very lands that make up our American birthright.

When we vote for CRAs as a way to manage our public lands, we vote against including communities in the process; we shut them out from the decision-making process when we should be inviting them in.

Third, today's vote does not account for the hundreds of millions of dollars per day that are generated for local economies by public land recreation and recreators. Recreation on public lands is an economic powerhouse. The recreation industry generates $128 billion in economic activity from public land every single year. It drives $6 billion in Federal tax revenue. It creates jobs. From Bureau of Land Management land alone, recreation supports 76,000 jobs and contributes more than $12 billion--billion with a ``b''--in economic output.

These numbers are big, and they matter. They matter to outfitters. They matter to small businesses. They matter to local communities. They tell the story of just how valuable these lands are to Americans-- valuable both as a birthright and in dollars and cents.

That rings true in Wyoming, where the plan we are voting on today is located. For example, in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, outdoor recreation contributed $2.2 billion to Wyoming's economy. That is over 4 percent of Wyoming's GDP--the fifth highest rate in the Nation. The industry supported almost 16,000 jobs that same year. That is over 5 percent of the State's total--total--employment.

Now imagine that all of that is put at risk through congressional actions that leave no room for public comment to voice their concerns. There is no planning process--just unilateral decisions made in Washington, DC. So instead of amending the plan and allowing for more public voices to be heard and more communities to weigh in, as we have done for decades before, they just decide to override the whole process, box the public out. Well, you don't have to imagine it because that is what we are doing right now, and you deserve to know.

No land management plan is perfect. All of them need to be reviewed, updated, and improved. But we have a process for that, and it includes listening to our constituents, letting them drive the decisions. CRAs don't do that. They are a blunt instrument. They do the opposite-- shutting out the public and rigging a process to guarantee an outcome of Senate Republicans' choosing.

So I stand here today, and I urge all of you to vote against this CRA. Public lands belong in public hands. They belong to all of us. That means that every single person deserves a chance to provide input on how they are managed.

I urge my colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote on this resolution of disapproval.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today is an extraordinary day in this Chamber.

If my colleagues will vote for this measure, then we will see justice triumph over politics. Truth will triumph over deception and obfuscation. Transparency will triumph over dark money. Partisanship will fall away to bipartisanship, and grass-roots, the people, will reclaim the people's House with this vote.

It is going to be a victory for survivors; not just survivors of the Epstein sex trafficking scandal, but the 1,000 survivors who exist. Some of them are victims. They are no longer alive, and some have committed suicide. They share one thing in common: Their youth was robbed from them, and much of their lives were robbed from them. But they are claiming it back. We are going to help them claim that back.

However, it is not just a victory today if this vote prevails for those survivors. It is a victory for every person, man or woman, boy or girl, who has been victimized sexually in this country. Anybody who has been a victim of sexual assault, or maybe they have been victimized by a family member, maybe it is not a billionaire, but they are all waiting and watching to see what we do today.

They are wondering: If I go to mom or dad, will anything happen?

If I go to the sheriff, will anything happen?

We have a chance today to make something happen, something that has not happened, something that should have happened decades ago, and that is to get justice for these victims and survivors, and transparency for America.

That is what this vote is about today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the generosity of Representative Jim McGovern for granting us this time.

I am embarrassed for my own party today. I am embarrassed we withheld swearing in a duly-elected Representative of the people for 49 days just to avoid this vote that is finally going to happen today.

I am embarrassed that my own party isn't going to yield me time to debate this. Even though they say they support it and I authored it, they don't even want to yield me time to debate this during the bill debate.

However, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you whom I am thankful to: these three brave women, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. They have been threatened, and they have been intimidated physically and politically--it is disgusting--not by the far left. They have been intimidated by people in our own party.

For what?

It is for seeking justice for these victims.

So my hat is off. I congratulate them for standing strong.

I have always wondered: Where were the Republican men during this battle?

We have taken 5 months. These three women and I have had to drag our party to this floor today to even vote on this.

Ro Khanna is the most to be thanked here. In an extraordinary display of bipartisanship, he did not hesitate when I asked if we wanted to bring this bill to the floor together, if he would stand in the trenches with me. He said yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, and we have had a lot of good men doing a lot of nothing on the other side of the aisle until we did something. Three brave women, myself, and the Democratic Caucus, we did something. Then, what did they do? They have opposed us every step of the way. They have lied about the legislation.

Let me tell you some of the lies they have told. They have said that it doesn't protect victims. Well, if that is so, why were dozens of victims with us today at a press conference, urging this body to pass this legislation? It is because this legislation specifically protects victims.

They have said this legislation does not prevent the release of child pornography. Of course it does. We have a specific provision in our legislation to prevent that.

They have said so many falsehoods about this legislation, but now they are going to vote for it--hopefully enthusiastically. Really, they have been drug to this.

Our judicial system is broken. If it were working, there wouldn't be a thousand victims who haven't seen justice yet. They are victims of the Epstein class.

I begrudge nobody's success if they become a billionaire, but if you think being a billionaire or buying politicians keeps you out of the judicial system, lets you rape young women, lets you traffic women, you have another thing coming when this bill passes.

Do not let the Senate muck this up. There have already been efforts to derail our discharge petition. The Oversight Committee has released thousands, tens of thousands of documents. That is fine. Keep working. How many names have they released? Zero.

They are still protecting, or the DOJ is protecting, pedophiles and sex traffickers. The time for that to stop is now.

Our Speaker says: Oh, this bill needs to be amended in the Senate, and specifically, he is trying to create a loophole. He is trying to categorize the pedophiles as victims. He is saying: Oh, we don't want to embarrass the people who went to the rape island. We should protect those names against unreliable accusations. Is he calling all of these victims unreliable?

They have testified to the FBI. The FBI has these names in their possession.

I asked the FBI Director in a hearing: Have you looked at the documents?

No. He trusts everybody who has been there for decades.

That is wrong. Do not let the Senate muck this bill up. If Senators are a party to that in the Senate, they are part of this coverup that we are trying to expose. I am sorry if one of their billionaire donors is going to get embarrassed because he went to rape island.

That is what they have coming. In fact, they need to be on the other side of bars, a lot of them. Some of them will be embarrassed, but some of them need to go to prison, and the survivors know that.

Mr. Speaker, how will we know if this bill has been successful? We will know when there are men, rich men, in handcuffs being perp-walked to the jail. Until then, this is still a coverup.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Senate colleagues: Do not muck up this bill.

The President has already said that he will sign it. That means that he will sign the bill that we have here today.

Do not change this bill. He is ready to sign it. Give it to him. Put it on his desk. Let's get justice for these victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation, H.J. Res. 130, which utilizes the congressional disapproval procedure under the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, to restore coal leasing in Wyoming's Powder River Basin.

Many on the East Coast of America might be surprised to learn that the Federal Government owns massive amounts of the western States.

In Wyoming, the Federal Government owns about half of our surface estate and 60 percent of the subsurface estate, or our minerals. In northeast Wyoming, the Bureau of Land Management's Buffalo Field Office owns and manages over 780,000 acres of land and 4.7 million acres of our mineral estate.

Notably, this land encompasses Wyoming's share of the Powder River Basin, North America's largest coal deposit responsible for the production of 40 percent of our Nation's coal.

Wyoming is the largest coal producer in the Nation. We, in other words, are responsible for ensuring that you can turn on your lights and heat your home. The BLM manages its public lands pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which is implemented pursuant to what we refer to as resource management plans, or RMPs.

These RMPs are designed to maximize resource values for the public. The BLM is required to comply with a multiple use mandate, ensuring that these combination of uses meet current and future needs of the American people.

In its waning days, the Biden administration issued an RMP amendment for the Buffalo Field Office which pursued the no new leasing alternative, pulling 481,000 acres of America's largest coal reserves and resources offline, making 48 billion short tons of coal unavailable and ending leasing in the Powder River Basin.

Such a decision cannot be considered a legitimate or legal RMP pursuant to

FLPMA, and neither does it align with Congress' multiple use mandate.

The Biden RMP is instead very clearly a mineral withdrawal enacted by climate activists in direct violation of the law.

The Biden administration's decision to terminate mining in Wyoming's PRB is not only irresponsible and harmful but downright illegal, a mechanism used by the governing elite to inflict harm on every single citizen of this great country to further climate change lunacy.

If this RMPA is allowed to continue, it would risk 4,122 jobs in rural Wyoming, $1.9 billion in labor output through 2048, and millions of dollars in State revenue used to fund public K-12 education.

This seemingly localized decision has national repercussions, as well. In 2024, Wyoming produced 191 million tons of coal, 171 million tons of which were shipped to 26 different States for producing electricity.

At these rates, Wyoming produces about 40 percent of the Nation's coal and about 80 percent of all Federal coal production.

With coal generating as much as 23 percent of America's electricity at any given time, Wyoming coal supplies as much as 9.2 percent of the electricity produced in this country.

Watching the arguments in the Committee on Rules last night and on the floor today, it is clear that ``affordability'' is the word of the day for my colleagues across the aisle. If utility bills for Americans are something they genuinely care about, then I encourage them to vote for H.J. Res. 130 and to not turn off the Powder River Basin coal, which accounts for so much of American energy and could generate even more if Washington, D.C., had not waged a war on coal for the last three decades.

In short, it is policies such as no new coal leasing contained in this Buffalo RMPA that reduce affordability, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be supporting if they continue to oppose H.J. Res. 130.

This vote today is a vote to shore up the grid, which will have positive impacts on the utility bills of Americans. When combined with what this majority did for energy development in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, we are shoring up centuries of energy production.

We cannot survive in this country without Wyoming coal, the majority of which is produced in the Powder River Basin. Demand for Wyoming coal is only increasing, both here and abroad. If you turn out the lights on one of Wyoming's most important industries, you will also be turning out the lights on America.

The Biden administration knew this and pursued this harmful policy anyway, and they did so in violation of the law.

On September 18, 2025, the Government Accountability Office determined that the Buffalo RMP was a rule subject to the CRA on the grounds that it is an agency statement, is of future effect, and it implements, interprets, or prescribes law and policy.

This decision is in line with previous GAO decisions on similar land management plans and RMPs, several of which this body has passed in the 119th Congress.

A vote today for H.J. Res. 130 has many positive implications.

First, it would overturn this harmful plan and revert to the 2015 RMP, thereby protecting access to 481,000 acres for coal leasing.

Second, it would provide certainty to countless Wyomingites who rely on our good, clean coal for jobs and for revenue that funds the schools that our children attend.

Third, it is a vote for the millions of Americans who continue to rely on Wyoming coal--and who always will.

Fourth, it is a win for Congress, reminding the agencies that we are the primary policymaking branch of government and that we will hold the agencies responsible for bad, unlawful regulations.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 130.