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 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision.

Mr. President, I am coming down on the Senate floor, once again, to talk about another Congressional Review Act resolution that I am encouraging all of my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans--by the way, our last one on the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, right here, was bipartisan. I want to thank Senator Fetterman for his support here.

This is a really big one, and some people are like: Geez, Senator Sullivan, Senator Murkowski, you are down here a lot on these CRAs. We are down here a lot on these Congressional Review Act resolutions because of this. All right? I have trotted out this chart a lot, but it bears repeating. The Biden administration decided, because the far- left, radical environmental groups say: Hey, when Democrats get in power--that will mean the minority leader, if he ever became majority leader, that would include him--when they get into power, what do they do? They want to make sure they shut down the great State of Alaska. I won't go into all of the reasons, but they do it, and they are aggressive on it.

So, as I have said before, during the 4 years of the Biden administration, we had this last frontier lockup. Here is the actual list. It is shocking. I don't think, in the history of America, the Federal Government, the White House, ever used its powers so much to try to crush one State. They did it during the 4 years of the Biden administration with the support of my friends on the other side of the aisle--70 Executive orders and Executive actions, singularly and exclusively focused on the great State of Alaska--by the way, 10 on day one.

So when Joe Biden got inaugurated, man, he was raring to go to crush Alaska, kill thousands of jobs--by the way, great union jobs, by the way. Nobody ever talks about that. These are all great union jobs to develop resources for the great State of Alaska. So that was it. Seventy--can you imagine any other State in America having their own Federal Government crush them? We got sanctioned more than Joe Biden sanctioned Iran and Venezuela, and they are terrorist states. But that is what we dealt with.

So the reason I am down here so often on these CRA, Congressional Review Act, resolutions is, it is our chance--it is the Republican Senate, with a Republican President and a Republican House--to say: Now, wait a minute. We don't think the power of the Federal Government should be used to crush any State like this, especially one with all these great resources and great Native people.

I am going to get to all of this, but the Democrats do that.

So I am asking my colleagues on one of these--I can't remember which one;

there are several dealing with ANWR--to rescind the Biden rule, get it over to the President, and sign it into law.

Now, I am going to talk about the ranking member from New Mexico who just came down and spoke against this. He is the No. 1 guy in the Senate who loves to crush Alaska. But I am going to go into a little bit about his State and maybe something--the word called ``hypocrisy'' that we are going to get to here in a minute.

But this one is really big. The CRA that the Biden administration did to lock up ANWR--because out of all of the CRAs, a lot of these were illegal. They are illegal. They go against what Congress says the law is, and the executive branch just wouldn't do. It wouldn't follow suit. But the ANWR one was particularly illegal.

So, in 2017, in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Congress of the United States, after debating this topic for almost 40 years, said the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is going to be open for resource development--responsible resource development. We have the highest standards on resource development in the world in Alaska.

So the Congress, in a law, didn't ``suggest'' that we do it. The Congress mandated two lease sales--have to do it, Executive branch-- offering no fewer than 400,000 acres in this area, what we call the 1002 area. That is named after section 1002 of ANILCA. We finally got it done.

This is a hugely bipartisan issue in Alaska. We know how to develop our resources. By the way, the Native people, great, heroic Native people, Inupiat Natives who live on the North Slope of Alaska in NPR-A, in ANWR-I just did a townhall, by the way, with the great people, our North Slope Borough, and the one community actually lives here, just last night. They all, the leadership almost unanimously, wanted this resource development.

I am going to get into that in a minute.

So the law of the United States--the President signed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Section 1 was about tax cuts and jobs. Section 2 was about opening ANWR. That is what it said: Shall do it, must do it. OK? That was the law.

So imagine when the Biden administration came in, and they started saying: Eh, we are not going to follow the law. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of the Interior of the Biden administration, she announced at a press conference that through a regulation--that we are going to rescind today--they were going to lock up and shut down ANWR. No lease sales. They were going to cancel the lease sales of the Trump administration.

This is blatantly illegal. None of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: Wait a minute. You can't do that. You are violating the law.

They talk about a lot of administrations violating the law, but when it came to Alaska, Joe Biden violated the law every day almost.

So this is a quote from Secretary Haaland. Despite the law--she was a former Congresswoman--saying you have got to develop this--shall, must, Congress is telling you--she said that ``with today's action'' on an Executive order ``no one will have the rights to drill'' in this area.

Whoa. Well, that is pretty darn illegal when the Congress said: No, you have do that.

So it is not just me saying that. In 2025, after litigation by the State of Alaska against the Biden administration, one of our Federal judges in Alaska, Judge Gleason, wrote that the ``Federal Defendants'''--that is the Biden administration--``cancellation of the [ANWAR] leases,'' which they did illegally, ``was not in accordance with the law.'' I am quoting the judge. The Department of the Interior error is serious. The Department of the Interior canceled these leases without following congressionally mandated procedure.

So there you go. It is not just me, one Senator, saying that what Joe Biden did was illegal. It was a Federal judge.

This vote today is actually to vindicate the rule of law. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk about the rule of law a lot. So I certainly hope that we can do that.

To Senator Heinrich, the senior Senator from New Mexico, and his colleague Secretary Haaland, I think they need special recognition on what I would just refer to as hypocrisy, because as soon as that 2017 law was passed saying, ``hey, you can now develop this area,'' the senior Senator from New Mexico led a letter with dozens of Democrat Senators, writing to all the investment banks and all the insurance companies, saying: We are a bunch of Senators. We have a lot of power. Don't invest in Alaska. Don't invest in ANWR--don't.

I mean, I could threaten businesses and stuff. We are a bunch of powerful Senators. Don't do it.

Could you imagine if every Senator in the Senate decided, ``hey, I am going to pick on New Mexico; I am going to make it my point in life to just go after New Mexico, shut down their economy, kill thousands of jobs''? This place wouldn't work at all.

But the senior Senator from New Mexico has made it a career of shutting down my great State. In one of those letters, he said: We have to do this. Shut down Alaska. Don't invest in Alaska.

He is down here on the floor arguing against voting for this CRA because he said we have to ``meet America's climate goals.'' So that is one of his arguments: Let's shut down the great State of Alaska so we can ``meet America's climate goals.''

So here is how I am talking a little bit about hypocrisy. During the time of the Biden administration and these 70 Executive orders--right there, to crush my State, kill thousands of jobs--what was going on with New Mexico, where the senior Senator is from and where Secretary Haaland is from? Well, the press never writes this story. I have given a speech on this many times. It was ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico--``drill, baby, drill.''

You want to talk about climate goals? You want to talk about a climate bomb?

My State barely has 500,000 barrels a day of production. New Mexico, under Joe Biden and Secretary Haaland and the senior Senator from New Mexico, they went from a million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day, all on Federal lands. Was that hypocrisy or what?

There were 9,366 applications for permits to drill during the first 2 years of the Biden administration. My State got zero from these guys. Over half of all permits to drill on Federal lands in the first years of the Biden administration went to what State? Oh, shoot, New Mexico. ``Drill, baby, drill.'' Climate bomb.

But the senior Senator is going to come down here and continue what he has done throughout his career, which is try to shut down my State. It is outrageous. It is outrageous.

Like I said, New Mexico has increased oil production since 2019 from 1.2 million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day, all on Federal lands. They are the second most oil-producing and climate-producing State in the country. Last year, the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee took the tax receipt from all its ``drill, baby, drill'' oil, and do you know what they are doing with the money? Free college, tax cuts, infrastructure, childcare, healthcare, you name it. Yet this guy wants to shut down my State--hypocrite, hypocrite.

Mr. President, let me end with one final point because I heard the senior Senator from New Mexico coming down to say: Well, the Native people really want to keep this area locked up.

That is so wrong. That is not correct at all. It is frustrating as can be when I hear another Senator try to speak on behalf of the Native people I have the privilege of representing. The vast, vast majority of the people who live on the North Slope of Alaska, the Inupiat Natives, they want to develop the resources. Why? For the same reason that New Mexico is giving healthcare and childcare and infrastructure from oil revenues to their people.

I find it very frustrating when I have Senate colleagues, particularly the senior Senator from New Mexico, come down on the floor and say: Well, we have to shut down Alaska. We have to keep them from developing. We will kill thousands of good union jobs. But, hey, don't look. It is ``drill, baby, drill'' in my State--which it is. It has been.

I will submit to the Record the Native voices of my State who want to develop their resources. There are a lot of reasons for that. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to talk about how there are poor people of

color, indigenous people, minority communities. But there is a big asterisk--not if it is Native Alaskans, no way. They love to keep them down, keep their economic prospects limited, and take away opportunity.

That is why, Mr. President, I would like to submit this letter for the Record in support of this CRA, in support of this Senate resolution. This is from the trilateral group of the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope. This is the Tribe--all the Tribes on the North Slope of Alaska, right here. They are for it, the North Slope Borough.

I did a townhall and presentation in front of them. That is the borough here, the North Slope Borough. That is the elected officials. Almost all are Alaska Natives. Maybe all of them are Alaska Natives, including the mayor, including the president of the borough--good friends of mine. By the way, that borough, I think, is about the size of Montana. So it is pretty big. And there are the Alaska Native corporations too. This is the trilateral. They say this is a really important Senate resolution.

These are the Native people of my State who live where this action that we are taking here on the Senate floor is going to take place. They are saying this is absolutely critical to their sovereignty, to their economic development, to their cultural heritage. It is a very powerful letter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

There is also what we call the VOICE of the Inupiat, another group similarly situated--all Alaska Natives, all from this area. They were established to speak with a unified voice for the Native people on the North Slope, to preserve the advancement of the Inupiat culture and economic self-determination. All of the members of the board of directors of this organization unanimously support this resolution.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Finally, Mr. President, it is important to know that the Trump administration is also fully supportive of our Senate resolution in terms of this CRA. This is a statement of administrative policy, where it States:

The Administration strongly supports passage of H.J. Res.

131.

I ask unanimous consent to have that statement printed in the Record.

Why do our Alaska Native people so strongly support this CRA and the one that we did on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska a couple of weeks ago? Why? I talked about this many times, but I am going to do it again because it is really important. Yes, it is jobs. Yes, it is economic self-determination. All of those are really important. It is having the Federal Government actually work with them and listen to them.

By the way, on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, Biden shut down. The Native people from the Tribe, from the ANC, from the Bureau came to Washington, DC, eight times. They flew 4,000 miles, eight times, to meet with Secretary Haaland to say to her: Don't do this. We are the people of the region. We are the Native people of the region. Don't issue this regulation that is going to lock up opportunities for us, going to lock up healthcare, going to lock up healthier living.

And you know what? She never even met with them. She never met with them. They flew here eight times, and she never even met with them. Talk about canceling Native voices.

But why does it matter? Well, I think this chart explains a lot. I have brought it on the Senate floors many times, but it bears repeating. I want my colleagues--I want the senior Senator from New Mexico, as his State spends billions of dollars from their ``drill, baby, drill'' oil revenues, climate bomb revenues--that is fine for them, right? I have nothing against that. But I do when that State is doing it, and then they try to shut down my State. He leads the charge, by the way, almost every time, which really frustrates me.

Here is a really important study from the American Medical Association, from 1980 to 2014--so a 25-year period. It said: Let's look at America, and where are people's lives increasing, and where are people's lives decreasing?

That is horrible. We don't want that as Americans.

So when you look at this chart and you see a kind of yellow, orange, and red, those are actually places where the life expectancy of American citizens went down. That is very unusual for us. We don't want that. Unfortunately, that has been in places like West Virginia, Southern Ohio. That is primarily opioid epidemic stuff, which is horrible.

Then, where has life expectancy increased? You see the green, blue, and then purple. The increases are dramatic. It is 13 years where the purple places are. Well, guess which State increased life expectancy the most over that period, from 1980 to 2014: Alaska. Guess which parts of Alaska: the parts with predominantly Native populations--the North Slope Borough, Northwest Arctic Borough, Aleutian Islands chain, some here in southeastern Alaska. Life expectancy went up by 13 years.

I have said this many times when I am debating my Democratic colleagues. Give me an indicator of policy success more important than that the people you are representing are living longer. There isn't one. No one ever came to me and said: Here is better. We are putting out less emissions.

That is not a better indicator of policy success.

So the people of my State, particularly in the North Slope Borough region, Northwest Arctic Borough region, Aleutian Islands chain region--they are living longer. That is great. Everybody should applaud that.

Why do you think they are living longer? Here is why they are living longer. It is responsible resource development. On the North Slope, starting around 1980, we discovered and started developing the largest oil field in North America, Prudhoe Bay. In the Northwest Arctic Borough, they discovered and started developing the biggest lead-zinc mine on the planet.

By the way, this is all great for America. It makes us stronger. But it is really great for the people of the region.

In the Aleutian Islands chain, because of Federal law, the Magnuson- Stevens Act, we started developing our own fisheries--American fisheries--out to the 200-mile limit. In all of these areas, people started living longer. Why? They got good jobs. They got revenues for schools, for health clinics, for running water and flushed toilets. A lot of these places don't even have running water and flushed toilets. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to block this kind of development.

For the senior Senator from New Mexico, his State is ``drill, baby, drill,''--2 million barrels a day. They are now using that oil money for everything under the Sun--infrastructure, childcare, healthcare-- but for Alaska, no way. We are going to shut you down.

Do you know what? You are going to actually make the people I represent not live as long.

So that is why I come down to the Senate floor. I get a little bit hot under the collar because I just see this blatant hypocrisy on the other side. I just need one Democrat beyond Senator Fetterman to vote with the people of Alaska, the Native people--for their livelihoods, for an increase in how long they live. That would be a courageous vote. That would be the right thing to do.

I hope that all of my Republican colleagues will stand strong with us on voting yes on this important resolution, and I hope that maybe one or two of my Democratic colleagues will. By the way, they know it is the right thing to do. This resolution will help people live longer. It will help our country be stronger in terms of American energy. It will vindicate the rule of law after Joe Biden and Secretary Haaland blatantly violated it.

I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting ``yes'' on this important resolution for the Native people of Alaska, for my State, and for our great Nation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to reject the Biden administration's unlawful attempt to stifle Alaska's congressionally mandated oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. I urge my colleagues to support the Alaska congressional delegation's joint resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 131 and S.J. Res. 91, to reject unlawful regulatory overreach.

The implementation of the Biden administration's 2024 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision, ROD, locked away nearly 75 percent of the Coastal Plain, also known as the 1002 Area, including lands that are projected to have substantial resources beneath them, from responsible oil and gas leasing--completely undermining the explicit and express will of Congress and ignoring the needs and input of local residents. Passing this joint resolution will disapprove this Record of Decision and prevent this circumvention of Federal law from happening again.

Alaska has a strong record of responsible resource development. The footprint of drilling pads on the North Slope has declined by 80 percent since the 1970s, while new and safer technology has expanded the reach of underground drilling by a significant margin. The result is that less land is being used to develop resources than ever before, as many modern sites cover just a few acres and are miles apart. These technological advancements have played a significant role in reducing impact to surrounding ecosystems. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou herd, which ranges throughout Prudhoe Bay, has seen its population grow for sustained periods alongside responsible development on the North Slope.

The prospect of oil and gas development within ANWR has a long history that dates back to before Alaska joined the Union as a State in 1959. In 1943, the Federal Government withdrew all the lands on the North Slope by Public Land Order, PLO 82, to prevent certain types of development. In 1960, the Department of the Interior, DOI, issued PLO 2214, setting aside 8.9 million acres to establish the Arctic National Wildlife Range for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreation values, withdrawing the lands from ``all forms of appropriation . . . including mining but not the mineral leasing laws.'' PLO 2214 intentionally left open the possibility of the development of certain resources, including oil and gas.

Under the landmark 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, the Range was expanded to its present size of 19.3 million acres--an area nearly as large as South Carolina--and renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Section 1002 of ANILCA directed the Department of the Interior to study the oil and gas potential of the 1.57-million-acre Coastal Plain, a designated area of ANWR that held great promise of oil and gas resources. However, section 1003 prohibited oil and gas production or leasing in ANWR unless authorized by an Act of Congress.

Over the following years, DOI completed assessments of the area's oil and gas potential and recommended that Congress lease the Coastal Plain area. The Coastal Plain showed remarkable prospects for oil development. The U.S. Geological Survey concluded in 1998 that the Coastal Plain held at least 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, reporting: ``Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels.'' In 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that over 3 billion barrels were technically and economically recoverable in the Coastal Plain. Based on estimates such as these, DOI projected in 2024 that ANWR drilling would generate around $29 billion in revenue for the Federal Government through 2050.

Despite numerous efforts by Congress and the leadership of Alaska's congressional delegation to realize this potential, it was not until the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, TCJA, that the groundwork for authorizing drilling in ANWR was laid. Within this budget reconciliation bill, Congress directed the creation of the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program for the express purpose of generating revenue and offsetting the tax cuts included in the Act.

That was why, when Congress passed the TCJA, it included very clear and specific terms to make the lease sales successful and the exploration and development program economically feasible. Section 20001 of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, TCJA, expressly mandates that the Department of the Interior, DOI, shall issue a competitive oil and gas program for the leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain. It amended ANILCA to add this purpose for ANWR, set specific royalty rates for leases, and directed that 50 percent of receipts for the oil and gas program and operations on Federal land be deposited in the U.S. Treasury with the State of Alaska receiving the remainder. The bill further directed at least two Coastal Plain lease sales within 10 years of enactment, the first by December 2021 and the second by December 2024, offering the areas with the highest hydrocarbon potential, with lease offerings of not fewer than 400,000 acres.

Congress left little discretion to DOI. DOI's role was only to establish and administer a competitive program and incorporate TCJA requirements to instill success and economic feasibility, including granting any easements or rights-of-way across the Coastal Plain for exploration, development, production, and transportation in the Coastal Plain that were necessary to carry out the terms of section 20001.

To implement Congress' directive, DOI conducted a National Environmental Policy Act process and issued a Final Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Environmental Impact Statement, Final EIS, in September 2019 that closely followed congressional intent. In 2020, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, under the first Trump administration, issued its ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision,'' based on Alternative B from the 2019 Final EIS that made all of the approximately 1.6 million acres of the program area available for oil and gas leasing. In January of 2021, a competitive lease sale was held and multiple bids were received by prospective developers as intended under the TCJA, raising millions of dollars for the United States. Congress had set out terms and conditions of the program, to give it a sound opportunity to succeed, and DOI followed its statutory directive.

However, following the election of President Biden, DOI reversed direction in 2021. On June 1, 2021, DOI issued a Secretarial Order temporarily halting all activities in the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. In August 2023, DOI issued a new Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program and selected a much more restrictive plan for development, Alternative D. The new alternative's restrictive terms were contrary to the lease sale requirements set out in the TCJA and Congress' intent that DOI establish a competitive program designed for success and economic feasibility. In a Secretarial Order issued in September 2023, DOI imposed a blanket moratorium on development and canceled the lawfully purchased oil and gas leases in the Coastal Plain, an action the Alaska District Court subsequently found to be unlawful.

Then, in November 2024, BLM issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Final SEIS, that moved even further away from the TCJA. DOI selected a new preferred Alternative D2, which was so draconian that it was effectively a ``No Development'' plan and made nearly 1.2 million acres unavailable for leasing or exploration. On December 9, 2024, DOI issued its 2024 ROD selecting Alternative D2's terms and conditions for the oil and gas program. The December 2024 ROD's terms were so limiting that they would make leasing, exploration, and development on the Coastal Plain economically infeasible. Much of the Alternative D2 highest hydrocarbon potential area would essentially be off limits, as it would be subject to No Surface Occupancy or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. DOI offered only 995 acres of Surface Disturbance Area, less than half of the maximum 2,000 Surface Acres of Federal Land for Production and Support Facilities that the TCJA allowed. Alternative D2 contained so many limitations, restrictive stipulations, and Required Operating Procedures that it made leasing and development economically infeasible. As a result of this blatant attempt to undermine and disregard Congress' direction for a competitive oil and gas leasing program within the Coastal Plain, the DOI received zero bids and never truly held a competitive oil and gas lease sale. As I said at the time, January 20, 2025, and the inauguration of President Trump could not come soon enough.

Permit terms can undermine the program's economic feasibility in indirect ways, such as limiting the location of future drill pads and other infrastructure. As an example, one stipulation prevented use of areas near the shore, which would usually be used as a critical staging area for loading and unloading barges. The stipulation preventing use of that area requires staging to be pushed further inland, which in turn requires construction of ice or gravel roads to reach the barges-- a higher economic, logistic, and environmental impact. Other stipulations are redundant with existing State requirements. These are just some of the many examples of 2024 ROD terms that make the program economically infeasible. These terms and conditions in the 2024 ROD are part of why the Senate should pass this joint resolution to prohibit similar restrictions in the future.

The clear intent of Congress in the TCJA was that the Coastal Plain would produce billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas which Alaska and the Nation need for energy security and revenue. Not only is it impossible for a competitive oil and gas leasing program to be administered through piecemeal offerings of land tracts which exclude areas known to have proven potential for significant hydrocarbon reserves, but in doing so, the 2024 ROD ignored explicit instructions put forth by Congress in the TCJA. Congress clearly stated the Secretary ``shall establish and administer a competitive oil and gas program for the leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain,'' that the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Program ``shall'' be supported by lease offerings of ``not fewer'' than 400,000 acres, and the 400,000 acres ``shall'' consist of ``those areas that have the highest potential for the discovery of hydrocarbons.'' The Biden DOI's sabotage of the program went directly against the policy and purposes of the TCJA.

When an agency fails to follow mandates from Congress, Congress has the tool of the Congressional Review Act, CRA, to correct those actions. DOI must follow the statutory mandates from Congress and allow meaningful and reasonable economic development of the Coastal Plain. No other law or detailed terms and conditions imposed by DOI can destroy the clear statutory direction given by Congress in the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act. If the Biden administration's onerous terms and conditions were allowed to stand, there would not be any ``program for the leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas'' from any of the most prospective leases in the Coastal Plain.

In its selection of Alternative D2, the Biden administration claimed to be listening to the concerns of indigenous voices when this could not be further from the truth. In practice, the Biden administration deliberately ignored the only communities who live near and within the boundaries of ANWR and was instead beholden to radical environmental interests which, in contrast to local communities, supported a moratorium on ANWR development and led to the creation of the 2024 ROD. Fortunately, elections have consequences, and on January 20, his first day in office of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14153, ``Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,'' which called for the rescission of Biden's illegal cancellation of the ANWR leases and the 2024 SEIS, review of the 2024 ROD, and a reinstatement of the 2020 Final EIS and 2020 ROD issued during the first Trump administration.

This past summer, Secretary of the Interior and Chairman of the National Energy Dominance Council Doug Burgum flew to Alaska and held a townhall on the North Slope with regional leaders and listened to their concerns, showing respect for the Alaska Native people who live there. During the townhall, the Secretary heard the testimony of Charles Lampe, a resident of Kaktovik--the only community located fully within ANWR--and the President of Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, KIC. KIC is a village corporation established by the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. KIC owns approximately 92,000 acres of surface lands, but is completely enveloped within ANWR and hampered from developing these acres to their fullest potential. Mr. Lampe shared the continuous efforts undertaken by KIC in order to open ANWR to oil and gas operations. He highlighted the fact that pursuing oil and gas endeavors in ANWR is essential to realizing self-determination within Kaktovik. In testimony on Coastal Plain oil and gas development delivered to the House Committee on Natural Resources in 2023, Mr. Lampe objected to radical environmental interests that support turning the community and its surrounding land into a giant national park, claiming such an action ``literally guarantees us a fate with no economy, no jobs, reduced subsistence, and no hope for the future of our people.'' In front of those gathered, Secretary Burgum committed to rectifying this injustice.

Because of the opportunities provided by oil and gas operations, this industry has provided thousands of good-paying jobs to Alaskans, become the primary driver of my State's economy, and transformed many of our rural communities. Oil and gas revenues fund education, essential infrastructure, and community services across the State, making responsible resource development truly a matter of life or death for Alaskans. In 1954, the Interior Department, with the help of the University of Pittsburgh, conducted a study of the health of Alaska Natives. Many of our communities in rural Alaska all had some of the lowest levels of life expectancy in the entire world. Between 1980 and 2014, the average lifespan increased by 13 years across the region, largely due to oil and gas revenue providing the opportunity to install what we consider to be basic and essential community infrastructure. To say these operations have had a positive impact on the local communities is a gross understatement, an ideal that is reflected in the testimony of Mr. Lampe.

This Congress has already taken decisive steps to reassert its authority over the Coastal Plain. In the ``Working Families Tax Cut Act,'' P.L. 119-21,

Congress mandated lease sales to be offered under the same terms and conditions set forth in the August 2020 ROD for the FEIS of the original Coastal Plain leasing program. In October, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum made good on his commitments to the people of Kaktovik and issued a new Coastal Plain Leasing Program based on the 2020 ROD. Passage of this joint resolution would durably protect against another rogue administration promulgating a substantially similar anti-development leasing program for the Coastal Plain as contained in the 2024 ROD. It will prevent actions that aim to inhibit the self-determination of the people of Kaktovik and other North Slope communities by attempting to turn Alaska into one giant national park while denying access to the abundance of readily available natural resources needed to advance energy security, economic opportunity, and community development.

Congress' direction that DOI establish and administer a competitive lease program was nondiscretionary and much more limited than the action DOI took in the 2024 ROD. To the extent DOI, or any other Agency, imposes permit terms or operational requirements that impede the economic feasibility of the program, they undermine the primary purpose of the TCJA: to establish a competitive program that will actually generate the billion dollars in revenue anticipated. The Act specifically states that DOI must grant easements or rights-of-way across the Coastal Plain that are necessary for exploration, development, production, and transportation in the Coastal Plain to carry out the terms of section 20001, and DOI's permit operating procedure terms must be consistent with Congress' intent in the same way to be consistent with law. Those permit and operational terms can be identified, revised, and readopted to conform to the TCJA intent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the Office of Management and Budget, dated November 17, 2025; a letter of support from Charles Lampe, President of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, dated December 3, 2025; and a briefing sheet from the Bureau of Land Management on the explaining the differences between the 2024 Biden administration Record of Decision for the ANWR Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program and the 2020 ROD issued during the first Trump administration and the implications of using the Congressional Review Act.

I urge my colleagues to reject this blatant contravention of congressional directives and unlawful regulatory overreach, reinforce American energy dominance, and listen to Alaska Native voices by supporting the Alaska congressional delegation and voting for this joint resolution of disapproval and rescinding this Record of Decision.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up

House Resolution 879 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 879, providing for the House's consideration of eight separate measures.

The rule provides closed rules for consideration of S.J. Res. 80, H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their respective designees, for each joint resolution. The rule provides each such joint resolution one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides closed rules for the consideration of H.R. 1949 and H.R. 3109 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees, for each bill. The rule provides each bill with a motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 58 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their respective designees.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107 under closed rules with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or their respective designees, on each bill. The rule provides for one motion to recommit for each bill.

Finally, the rule tables H. Res. 581 upon the transmission of a message to the Senate that the House has passed H.R. 4405.

Mr. Speaker, after over 40 days of the Democrat government shutdown, the House has returned to regular order, and this majority is continuing to push forward with the America First agenda, the American people's agenda.

All of these pieces of legislation we are considering today are in alignment with the American people's demand and President Trump's executive orders that we maintain a robust posture of American energy dominance.

You know, Mr. Speaker, our Democrat colleagues have developed a strong proclivity to thumb their noses at the development of energy that comes from American soil. One must wonder why they choose to do that. They pay lipservice to environmental protections and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is just a fact that American oil and American natural gas are cleaner and more environmentally friendly than any from our global competitors.

Why would they cede our dominance on the global stage in favor of hostile actors who lack even the most basic environmental protections?

We are blessed as a nation to have vast repositories of natural resources that we can draw from and utilize accordingly. When we ignore the opportunities to harness these resources for our benefit, we deny ourselves the opportunity to grow more self-sufficient.

H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107, two measures reported from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, focus on restoring law and order in our Nation's Capital City, a city that ought to be a model for the rest of the Nation to follow.

H.R. 5214 would revoke cashless bail in the District of Columbia and would require mandatory pretrial and postconviction detention for crimes of violence and other dangerous crimes.

H.R. 5107 would repeal the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 enacted by the District of Columbia Council. This act targeted police officers in D.C. for simply doing their duties, and it led to over 1,600 officers being removed from the city's force.

Thanks to President Trump's efforts, the streets in D.C. are safer, and we have the opportunity through these two measures to add to that progress.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have H. Con. Res. 58, a resolution denouncing the horrors of socialism. Most of us here in this body recognize how dangerous the plague of socialism really is. We understand its history of failure and oppression. Throughout history, this ideology has collapsed into the most brutal of dictatorships, communist regimes, and outright totalitarian rule.

Many are quick to avert their eyes and cover their ears when presented with facts about the horrors of socialism, how many individuals across the world have suffered and died because of it. This resolution will put everyone in this body on record. The American people will see who espouses this caustic ideology and those who reject it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while it is true there have been 80 closed measures, this number needs context. Twelve of the closed rules were in the rules package, which passed 2 weeks before the 119th Rules Committee even organized to begin meeting. Additionally, 25 measures were CRAs. They don't allow for an amendment. Sixteen were bills that received no amendments, meaning 41 measures were closed by definition. It is also important that four of the closed rules are duplicates from a previous failed rule. In reality, only 27 measures have been closed by discretion of the Committee.

Additionally, the Rules Committee under Republican control has simply been more productive, producing more total rules than our colleagues ever did. For example, during the most recent Democratic-controlled Congresses, the Rules Committee produced 127 total rules in the 116th Congress and 163 in the 117th Congress. Contrast this to the 200 total rules in the Republican-led 118th Congress. For the 119th, we are on pace to once again produce nearly 200 rules for the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing our job. We are not closing out debate. We are having plenty of debate. There are plenty of opportunities for our colleagues to offer amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans don't oppose the full transparency of the Epstein files. We embrace the Oversight Committee's task of doing just that. We embrace Representative Massie's legislation here today by putting it up for a vote under suspension. I will be voting for it.

We already have a House investigation that carries the full force of law, and there is no opposition to respecting the majority's wishes to get this codified into law. Let's get to it. Let's get to the vote and end these false debates, straw man arguments, and non sequiturs.

We tried to pass this bill last week, but Democrats wouldn't agree to doing so. Let's vote now. Democrats should stop, listen, and take yes for an answer.

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

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

At the top of this page, I have written: ``Democrat hypocrisy on Epstein.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what we are hearing today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I am proud to have supported the full investigation into the Epstein files on that committee.

Furthermore, I am proud to have supported formalizing that investigation by taking the decisive step in directing that investigation by a special rule provided by the Rules Committee. This gave the Oversight Committee's investigation the full weight of the House of Representatives behind the committee's existing subpoena power. It is very important in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, let's get things straight here. In just a matter of hours, we will vote on the Massie bill. That won't preclude the existing House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation in any way. That is a great thing because that investigation is yielding results.

We now know that one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest confidantes was apparently Larry Summers, a Cabinet member in the Clinton administration. We now know that a Democrat Member in this body, Stacey Plaskett, was colluding with Jeffrey Epstein in real time during a hearing. The subject matter was how to take down President Trump. We can't make this stuff up.

We now know that Epstein himself hated President Trump. It is in black and white. We now know that one of the chief Epstein victims stated that President Trump never acted inappropriately.

Don't forget that oversight investigations specifically subpoenaed Bill and Hillary Clinton for their ties to Jeffrey Epstein. They haven't been quick to step into the breach and exonerate themselves, have they?

The truth will continue to come out, as it has, because of Republicans and a current Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation, one that already carries the full force of law. Let's see where that leads.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to get facts straight here. President Trump's Department of Justice in his first term arrested and prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein. We, on our side, want justice to prevail in this case and in every case.

Speaker Johnson has always been clear that if the discharge petition reached the necessary signatures, then the House would consider the legislation, and that is what we are providing for in our rule today.

In fact, as soon as the petition hit 218 votes last Wednesday, House Republicans offered a unanimous consent request to pass the legislation then.

However, the Democratic leader would not give consent to do that last week.

Why?

It is because they are not really interested in this. They are interested in some other things.

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the Record.

Mr. Massie did not request time from me. I am the person who controls the time on the Republican side. He did not request time from me. I would have given him time.

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

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

Our colleagues want Americans to believe that this discharge petition and underlying legislation are the be-all and end-all in this investigation. However, it is House Republicans who have worked tirelessly to achieve true justice for victims.

To date, the significant information that has come out has come from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as a result of it issuing 13 subpoenas. We have released 65,000 pages of documents from the Department of Justice; the Epstein estate, which was not mentioned in the underlying legislation; the former U.S. attorney; and others.

Let me say it again. The unanimous-consent request to pass the legislation immediately last week was blocked by the minority leader, full stop. If Democrats truly cared about finding justice immediately for victims, this legislation would have been passed last week. Instead, they want political theater to capitalize on.

House Republicans, on the other hand, remain focused on truth, accountability, and delivering real justice for Epstein's victims, not political points.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, those of us who did not sign the discharge petition are just as concerned about the victims or, as some are calling them, survivors as our colleagues who signed the discharge petition.

We share contempt for anyone who abused anyone else. I have stood on this floor many times, Mr. Speaker, to speak out for victims and survivors of people who have been abused and against anyone who breaks the law or takes advantage of an innocent person.

We will not be characterized as insensitive to that, but House Republicans

who didn't sign the discharge petition remain focused on truth, accountability, and delivering real justice for Epstein victims.

Again, I will point out that it was under President Trump's Department of Justice that Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and tried. We have not tried to avoid this situation. We want things done the right way. We want maximum justice for these victims and survivors.

Our rule today simply expedites consideration of the Massie-Khanna legislation. As I said, we would have liked to have seen it pass last week when we gave an opportunity for it, but it was blocked by the Democratic minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support for this rule and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor this morning as we begin debate on two identical disapproval resolutions. This is S.J. Res. 91--I filed it with Senator Sullivan--and then H.J. Res. 131, which is a companion measure filed by our delegation colleague Representative Begich. These resolutions would nullify the Biden administration's Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. This was unilaterally rewritten and finalized over our objections back in November of 2024.

We are going to have an opportunity to vote later on a motion to proceed to my Senate resolution. Then, if that succeeds, our final vote tomorrow will be on the House resolution because it can then go directly to the President's desk.

Those of us in the Alaska delegation filed these resolutions because we are again seeking to overturn the Biden administration's effort to effectively shut down resource production across Alaska. We opposed their Central Yukon Resource Management Plan, their integrated activity plan for our National Petroleum Reserve, and their decision to shut down any potential development on a very small part of the Coastal Plain.

So for those who have not followed this, the Coastal Plain is a 1.56 million-acre tract of land. This is on the eastern part of Alaska's North Slope. So if you look at the overlay here of Alaska, across the lower 48 States, the ANWR region is up here in the upper eastern corner. The refuge itself is about 19 million acres. This is approximately the size of South Carolina. The nonwilderness area--this is the 1002 area--is 1.5 million acres, which is approximately the size of Delaware. Again, you see this in that section of the map there.

The Coastal Plain is part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but in designating that as a refuge, Congress specifically reserved this area up at the top, on the slope there, for energy exploration and potential future development. Congress did this through what was known as section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. We call it ANILCA. So when we refer to the 1002 area, it is this Coastal Plain here within the ANWR region.

Section 1002 of ANILCA starts with a purpose that explicitly authorizes ``exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife and other resources.''

So I think it is important that people understand this purpose, this distinction. The 1002 area--this area here, the purple area--is not Federal wilderness. By law--by law--it is a Federal set-aside. This area here is wilderness. This is the refuge area. The 1002 area, again, was specifically set aside to authorize exploratory activity.

Then Congress left the decision on development to be determined later. It was years--it was decades, actually--it was in 2017 that we in Congress agreed as to what should be allowed. I was chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee at the time, and we added a title II to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It drew bipartisan support, but we effectively put an end to a 40-year battle. We opened up a small fraction of the Coastal Plain to responsible development. And under the terms of that act, we required at least two area-wide lease sales over the course of 7 years.

But we provided balance to all that. It wasn't just ``open the whole thing for exploration.'' We limited surface development to just 2,000 acres.

So, keep in mind, in this area that is the size of Delaware, we limited surface development to 2,000 acres, which is one one-hundredth of 1 percent--one one-hundredth of 1 percent--or one ten-thousandth of all of ANWR. That is what we included within that measure in that 2017 act.

We did not shortcut or truncate the environmental review process. The Department of the Interior effectively spent 3 years designing a sound, environmentally protective program, and the result, then, was a record of decision in August 2020 that would have allowed us to safely develop the area's anticipated resources while fully protecting the fish, the wildlife, and the subsistence uses.

We have talked a lot on this floor and in other areas about the resources that we project to be in the ANWR area--prolific resources-- an estimated 7.7 billion barrels of oil, which would be enough to add a half million barrels a day to our Trans-Alaska Pipeline System for perhaps the next 40 years and help to fill up our pipeline.

I am one who has been engaged in this battle for decades, and I absolutely understand the concern about whether or not limited development makes sense in the area. And like so much of Alaska, the Coastal Plain is a special place. None of us wants to see it harmed, and that is why we went to such extraordinary lengths to ensure that energy development and environmental protection could coexist. We didn't trade one for the other. We didn't put energy above the environment.

We had a lot of confidence in the program that was finalized in 2020, but, unfortunately, we never got the chance to, once again, demonstrate how Alaska leads the world when it comes to balanced, environmentally responsible development.

We held our first lease sale in early 2021, but after that, everything seems to have just kind of gone in reverse, because on his first day in office, President Biden suspended the Coastal Plain Program. His Department of the Interior paused all leasing and development activities before arbitrarily canceling every lease in the area.

And the Biden administration didn't stop there, either. They next decided to rewrite the Coastal Plain Program to make leasing unattractive and development impossible. And they claimed deficiencies in the original process, between 2017 and 2020, that they had to somehow go back and remedy, but they never really cited anything specific. Now, keep in mind, the Biden administration in their political agenda did not include energy from Alaska. So they were trying to move forward and address what they said were flaws, but their process was also fatally flawed.

For starters, the Biden administration failed to meaningfully consult with the people who actually live on the North Slope, including those who live in Kaktovik, which is the only community within ANWR's boundaries. When I say ``failed,'' I mean they refused--they flatout refused. I added report language to my Interior appropriations bill directing them to do the consultation, and still they refused.

The Biden administration issued a record of decision for a new Coastal Plain Program in November of 2024. And if you spend time looking at it, you will understand why we are here, because it clearly and repeatedly contradicts Federal law, because the Tax Cut and Jobs Act opened the 1.56 million-acre Coastal Plain to potential development, subject to the 2,000-acre surface limit.

We were very clear in what that law was. The Biden administration took that, flipped it on its head, and finalized the program that allowed leasing on just 400,000 acres--so, gone, immediately. Gone was potential leasing on 74 percent of the 1002 area. And the 400,000 acres that was left available, which is--I question the availability there-- but it amounted to less than was bid on at the 2021 lease sale. And even there, 231,700 acres were subject to no surface occupancy, another 84,300 were subject to controlled surface use, and 3,100 acres were subject to timing limitation. So only about 5 percent--only about 5 percent--of the overall Coastal Plain was subject to standard

lease terms and conditions under the Biden plan. So think about that-- just 5 percent now.

The Biden administration also restricted seismic surveying--the best way to understand the Coastal Plains resources. They restricted the surveying of the lands that were now theoretically available for leasing. They even reinterpreted the 2,000-acre limit to not be a ``saleable feature'' of leases. We had discussed this with the Parliamentarians during the budget reconciliation back in 2017, but it was a matter of secretarial discretion to allow development of anywhere between 0 and 2,000 acres. So, again, they flipped that on their head.

So it wouldn't surprise you to learn that the 2024 program contemplates development on a maximum of 995 surface acres. Again, what we had statutorily prescribed--what the law says--was 2,000 acres.

Finally, the Biden administration expanded and created new lease stipulations and required operating procedures to further dissuade leasing interests and clamp down on any potential for development. The goal wasn't hard to understand. It is evident in the 2024 record of decision.

Interior acknowledged that, under their preferred alternative, future oil production from the Coastal Plain would decline nearly 80 percent. They knew it. That was the plan. I think they were probably trying to shoot for closer to 100 percent.

Under the 2024 plan, there would be no leasing, as we clearly saw in a lease sale that was designed to fail and then did fail late last year. There would be no development on the Coastal Plain, regardless of congressional action, support from Alaskans who live on the North Slope and within the Coastal Plain, or our national need for responsibly produced energy.

Bear in mind, this is all taking place right as the Biden administration was relaxing sanctions on countries like Iran, like Venezuela, allowing them to produce more and financially benefit from the development. And it also happened right as California, which is a traditional market for Alaska's oil, was importing more oil from the Middle East, which is a long way from California, but also from other countries in South America, actively deforesting the Amazon rain forests. So if you want to talk about a massive geopolitical and environmental failure, that was it--that was it--happening under that administration.

Less oil from Alaska means a Trans-Alaska Pipeline System that is running mostly empty. It means a west coast that increasingly turns to imports instead of domestic energy, regardless of the terror that that breeds or the devastation that it causes.

It also means fewer jobs for hard-working Alaskans, less opportunity in our communities for the folks who support and benefit from energy development, less revenue for the State of Alaska, and, in turn, less infrastructure and services. To me, that just makes no sense.

The people of the North Slope, the Alaska delegation, and the State of Alaska were ignored as the Biden administration put its 2024 program into place. From the start, this was a fait accompli. There was no question in my mind what they planned to do, and there was nothing unfortunately that we were able to do to change their minds.

It really didn't matter what Alaskans wanted. It didn't matter what the law required. It didn't matter that they wound up in court and lost--and lost badly--as they did when a Federal judge ruled that their cancellation of the Coastal Plain leases was blatantly illegal.

All of that was their choice, and this is ours. This is our choice-- to disapprove and permanently nullify their actions so that they never come back in substantially similar form. So if you care about the rule of law, if you care about our domestic energy security or the consequences of sending our dollars abroad for energy that we have here at home, then I would ask you to join us in supporting this resolution.

I think if you acknowledge that no one cares more about Alaska than Alaskans, you should be with the full Alaskan delegation on this. We can restore the rule of law. We can require Federal Agencies to follow congressional direction. We can return to balanced management on the Coastal Plain, while still protecting 99.99 percent of ANWR's surface acreage. I think the choice is pretty clear.

I would urge colleagues to support the motion to proceed later and the underlying resolution when we vote on it tomorrow.

Mr. President, I would ask, as I wrap here, that unanimous consent be provided for letters of support from those who live on the North Slope, as well as letters from the Resource Development Council and the NFIB, to be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

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.