Maiden Speech (Executive Session)
Mr. President, a year ago, my two little boys sat right up there, in the Gallery above, as I raised my right hand here on the floor. It was a moment unlike any other moment I have ever had in my life.
My dear colleagues, I hope it is never lost upon us that we get to work a job whose job description is written in the Constitution of the United States; what a deeply humbling experience, one we should treasure every chance we get.
Never in my life have I felt the call to serve so strongly and viscerally as I do right now. I believe we are in a moment of extraordinary consequence and magnitude and that the next 5 years will shape the next five decades. There is nowhere else I would rather be than to be able to have a voice in this room and a vote in this Chamber on the monumental decisions that will shape our Nation's future through tumultuous times.
But there is a bittersweet taste now, a year later, as I look back upon the day that I was sworn in. By my children's side, as they watched me a year ago, were my parents, both born during the Korean war, born into poverty, and they struggled to survive. Both saw America as a place where they could achieve the closest thing that they could get to a guarantee that the family they had raised would have a better life than they did.
It was actually predecessors in this room who passed the immigration reform that allowed my parents to come here. Had it not been for those decisions made here, our family's story would have no choice and no chance in America, and the decisions we are making now are shaping families for generations to come. I am in awe of what this Nation has afforded my family in just one generation.
But now I think of an episode that happened a few weeks ago. I was with my father at the doctor's office, and the doctor asked my father, ``Tell me
My father fell silent. He turned to me and looked with embarrassed eyes and said: I don't know.
My father no longer remembers being in this Chamber a year ago. He no longer remembers that momentous day I had hoped that our family would never forget. He no longer remembers that his hard journey from the Korean war to immigrating to America led to his son's being sworn in as the very first Korean-American Senator ever.
And it got worse.
The next question the doctor asked him was, What job did you have? What was your life's work?
And my father stared at the ground and paused and said the same three words: ``I don't know''--three words that I am sure I will hear a lot more of from him because that was the day that my father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.
Now, what made this all the more painful is the answer to the doctor's question, ``What did my father do for his career?'' The answer is that my father was a geneticist, a medical researcher, who spent his life trying to cure cancer and Alzheimer's. And now, as I was there witnessing Alzheimer's erase from my father's memory any recollection of his efforts to try to erase Alzheimer's from our world, I couldn't help but feel that Alzheimer's had won.
I remember dropping him off after the appointment and sitting in the car, alone, left to grapple with our new future, realizing, for the first time, that, to my list of core identities as a son, as a brother, a husband, a father, an American, a public servant, I now add caregiver. But with all of these other identities that I have assumed, I have embraced them. They have brought me joy and opportunity. They have brought me my partner for life. They have brought me the most precious boys I could ever imagine. But this new identity as a caregiver felt like it brought my family certain pain.
The doctor warned me that the next year or 2 of my life would be hell. I remember having to rush back to the Capitol for votes after that doctor's appointment. I was actually standing in this very spot when one of you came to me and started telling me about a bill that you wanted me to look at, and I remember politely saying: I am sorry, but I am barely keeping it together right now. My father is not well. Can we please talk about this tomorrow?
Instead of walking away, my colleague stayed with me, showed me comfort, and opened up about their own struggles and challenges in their family. And I responded by sharing my growing fears about the uncertainty that lay ahead, in that I would be forced to seek not the best care that my father could get but, instead, the best care for my father that my family could afford.
Suddenly, I felt inadequate as a son, and I panicked. I couldn't help but play back the last few years, and I beat myself up that I didn't see this coming.
Was there something I could have done to better prepare for this moment? I should have seen the warning signs and taken the precautions to provide better care for my father and my family.
And I fixated on a singular question: Why is it so hard to provide care in this country? And from that question comes others. Why is providing care so insanely complicated? Why does it feel like we are so alone when we try to provide care to the people we love?
For many, the disease or injury is only part of the problem. We are the richest, most powerful country in the world. Why does it cost so much to provide care? The answers explain my anxiety. The median cost for a private room in a senior care facility in New Jersey is $14,788 per month. That is over $177,000 per year. That is outrageous. It should be unacceptable. Who can afford that? I will tell you, I can't. I look at the costs, and I look at our finances, and the costs of caregiving have been catastrophic for my family this year.
But this is the reality for millions of Americans, and so many countless families are in much more dire circumstances than mine. They tell me how they are basically having to bankrupt themselves. A neighbor told me how she had to sell her forever home that they had hoped to grow old in just to pay her husband's bills for his dementia care. This is the storm after the storm--a storm of our own making--and out of this strain and stress, we feel alone. It shouldn't have to be this hard.
On top of this, I feel overwhelmed by a nagging feeling that my new identity as a caregiver is in direct competition with my other identities, in that it diminishes and drains what I can provide to my kids as their father and to others whom I love. I can't save for their education like I had planned to. I think of all the costs that we have endured over the years--daycare, healthcare--and of all the other experiences that I want to provide my kids that I might no longer be able to.
Even if you can afford this, what an anxiety-filled time it is to be raising kids. You can try to keep them off the phones or social media, but it dominates the conversations they have with their friends. You can try to give them the best education, but you look at the future where AI dominates, and you worry if they will be able to find a job that provides them the stability and security you want for them. And I see the world around us--the wars and the divisiveness. It is so much at times that it feels hard to breathe.
And I ask myself a question: What kind of America are my two boys, your kids, and your grandkids going to grow up in?
Regardless of the political parties to which we belong, I think we can all agree that a nation this powerful and this extraordinary should not be mired in this level of division.
My boys are now 8 and 10. That gives me about 15 years before they are off on their own. I know, actually, many of you have told me that it will be much longer than that because they will probably move back into my basement after college, but that is my timeline. I have got about 15 years to try and fix this.
So that is why I am here. That is why I take a seat in the U.S. Senate. I am a father willing to do everything I humanly can to try to fix this country for my kids and my family, but I am worried. I am worried because we stand here in this Chamber, under this ubiquitous frame of ``E pluribus unum''--``Out of many, one''--centered in the most prominent position in this room. It is the same motto that perches over the Capitol Rotunda, the House Chamber, the Oval Office.
But I ask you: Does it ring true, especially in this divided moment?
It often feels that it is more like ``Out of many, many''--``E pluribus multis.'' But I still believe in that phrase. I still believe in ``E pluribus unum.'' It is a beautiful and telling phrase.
But, as I have been thinking about it, I realize that there is something missing. How does many turn into one? The phrase is missing the verb. How do we actually get from many to one? It doesn't just happen on its own. Now, being the nerd that I am, I dug around, and I tracked down the origin of the phrase back to Cicero, at the dawn of republics, and I found the missing verb.
He says:
The missing verb is to love, but how do we express that to each other, not just here in this Chamber but across this great land?
Another way to think about it is when we care for one another as we would care for ourselves. Care is how we manifest love of nation, love of each other, and it is this realization that I have come to: ``E pluribus unum'' requires love and care.
How we become one out of many is to become caregivers to one another, that we here in this Chamber are to be caregivers to this Nation--a nation that right now needs healing, a nation whose future is uncertain and unsteady.
My role as a caregiver has taken on new meaning. The care with which I transfer my father to his wheelchair and wash his disabled body is but an example of the care with which we must handle a nation in fragile times. And in my new role, I have learned that care must flow in all directions, not just toward those we feel affinity to.
I have not shared this publicly before, but my father and I have had a difficult relationship over our lives. We have gone through tough times of division and separation, and I would be
I will bring that same sense of responsibility right here into this Chamber with a nation divided. I believe that one can and should care for one another even in the face of division and disagreement. Just as caregivers have a responsibility to those in their care, we, as Senators and as Americans, have a responsibility to one another, as community members, as people. Here in the Senate, it is where we should exemplify this action of care.
I have seen glimpses of what the Senate can be. This sacred ground that we get the honor to embody--it is not just a place of heated debate and consequential votes; it can be a place of care. It must be a place of care, not just for those of us in this Chamber but for the Nation.
The care you have shown me, from the ear with which you have listened to my telling of my troubles, let us pour that out of these doors and give it toward the 7 million Americans afflicted with Alzheimer's, the tens of millions more who are families struggling with the struggles of their loved ones. Let our care pour out to the tens of millions of parents who struggle to give their kids the kind of life they want. Let us build a caregiver movement to care for our family and also our Nation.
Today, in this maiden speech, I make a promise to the people of New Jersey and the people of this country that for as long as I have the chance to serve here, I will do everything I can to give you the care you deserve. I will care for your parents and grandparents as hard as I will for mine. I will care for your kids and grandkids as much as I care for mine. I will not be perfect, and I will stumble at times. But I have learned as a caregiver, I have no other choice but to endure. Whether it is the emergency calls in the middle of the night or the drop-everything moments where I have to rush to the hospital, there is no alternative. As a caregiver, we are the backstop.
We here in this Chamber need to be that for the ailing Nation. We are the backstop. There are times where it will be--to again quote my father's doctor--hell, not just for my family but for our country, but there is no greater cause than care. No bigger responsibility exists than the one we have to the people we love, and that extends to the Nation that we love. There is no larger obligation that we have as Senators and as Americans to make it easier to look after each other.
This is my maiden speech, and one day, I will stand here again to give my farewell speech. The duration between these two speeches will, I hope, not be measured in years but, instead, by the problems I sought to tackle and solve. In between these speeches, I hope we meet the urgency and lead our Nation forward with strategy and purpose.
I have often said that we work in what is arguably the most reactionary building in America--reacting to the headlines, the social posts--but it doesn't have to be this way. Instead, we can be a Senate that sets out real goals and builds the strategy to meet them.
Where do we want our Nation to be in 10, 20, 30 years from now? I want to be a part of that Senate--a Senate unafraid to pursue big ideas.
I hope in my future farewell speech, I can say that I was part of the Senate that finally delivered universal healthcare for our Nation; a Senate that found a way to provide childcare to every family and long- term care for every senior in need; a Senate that catalyzed innovation that led to prevent and cure Alzheimer's and other wretched diseases; a Senate that finally gave care to our caregivers, who for so long have felt invisible and taken for granted; a Senate that stood up against corruption and restored trust of the American people back into our democracy and governance; a Senate that helped restore American global leadership which shaped a world where peace and prosperity fosters freedom and innovation for everyone; and a Senate that created the kind of America where I can ease my anxiety as a parent as I watch my boys become men.
Colleagues, I ask for your help here because I cannot do this alone. None of us have this power alone. And the Nation is looking to us right now to right this ship and give a vision that we can be proud of.
To my staff, I promise you that this will be a noble journey you will be proud to be a part of. I know this will be hard and could very well fall short of our lofty goals, but I want no regret in my time here in this sacred Chamber; that I can say I did everything I could; that I have no regrets about the time I spent here, being a caregiver to our great Nation, to make one out of many.
I am ready. Let's get to work.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Healthcare (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, this week, we are going to spend a lot of time discussing problems with our healthcare system. To do that, we need to understand just how we got here.
Concerns about the rising healthcare costs are not new. In 2009, Democrats highlighted shortcomings in the American healthcare system as proof that the Federal Government had to intervene.
President Obama told us how to judge his healthcare plan. He told us that Americans would be able to keep their insurance plans and their doctors, and he also told us that insurance premiums would go down. As everyone knows, these predictions did not come true.
But there were signs from the start that ObamaCare would not work, which is why not one single Republican voted for it. That is also why the Democrats created the premium tax credits in the first place. They did not trust the one-size-fits-all nature of ObamaCare to lower costs and expand options.
Instead of decreasing, over the last 15 years, ObamaCare premiums have increased over 220 percent. A family of four pays $10,000 more for coverage today than they did before ObamaCare, and their deductibles have doubled. Insurance providers have dried up, and rural hospitals are struggling. ObamaCare has undermined healthcare in America.
In 2021, the Democrats again decided that premiums were too high and that a Federal response was necessary. But rather than fix the structural flaws in ObamaCare, they created an even bigger subsidy with fewer guardrails to entice more people into a broken program. Not only did they make the subsidy bigger, they made everyone eligible, regardless of their income. So families making $600,000 a year began to qualify. Democrats also temporarily eliminated reviews to confirm accurate payments and allowed individuals to continuously enroll throughout the year.
Because those changes were made under the premise of responding to the pandemic, the enhancements were only supposed to last for 2 years. But before they expired, the Democrats extended them for 3 more years-- again, without a single Republican vote.
With those expanded subsidies again about to expire--and by the way, on a date set by my Democrat colleagues--the pattern has become clear: Democrats respond to rising premiums by throwing taxpayer dollars at the problem. Their supposedly ``short-term'' fixes only drive premiums higher and make the problem harder to solve, leaving us with apparently no choice other than to do the same thing again and again and again.
ObamaCare is broken, and throwing good taxpayer money after bad policy is not going to fix it.
The enhanced premium tax credits account for only about 4 percentage points of next year's projected 20 percent increase in insurance premiums.
Let me say that again. These enhanced premium tax credits that we are talking about only account for about 4 percentage points of next year's projected 20 percent increase in insurance premiums.
Extending them will not solve the crisis. What it will do is cause tens of billions more dollars to be paid directly to insurance companies without improving patient care or choice. With taxpayers footing the bill, these subsidies give insurance companies every single reason they need to keep hiking premiums.
Even the Washington Post just yesterday explained in their words that ``Obamacare subsidies make it too easy to scam the system.''
Last year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that 1.6 million Americans were enrolled in both Medicaid and ObamaCare plans. This year, 6.4 million Americans were improperly enrolled in the enhanced premium tax credits, at a cost of $27 billion. Another 12 million subsidized plans reported no claims in 2024, suggesting that many of them were opened on behalf of people who did not even know they were insured.
Because insurance companies receive the subsidies regardless of whether a plan is used, there is no incentive on their part to check the enrollment status. In 2024, $35 billion was paid out for these unused plans.
My colleagues in the House asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the fraud surrounding the ObamaCare tax credits. Their findings, the findings of the GAO, were shocking.
The GAO created fake identities and attempted to enroll them in ObamaCare plans. All four of their fake applicants in 2024 received a subsidy. This year, 18 out of 20 fake applicants received subsidies.
GAO also found tens of thousands of cases of apparent identity theft and hundreds of thousands of cases where insurers or brokers changed people's plans or enrolled them in new ones without their consent.
Perhaps worst of all, they found that over $21 billion worth of subsidies--nearly one-third of all subsidies paid in 2023--had not been double-checked against enrollees' income. That means that there was nothing stopping these enrollees from misrepresenting their incomes to receive higher subsidies than those for which they were eligible.
Ultimately, it is not just the taxpayers that are hurt by this fraud, although taxpayers should not be on the hook for it to begin with; the other Americans who rely on Federal health programs suffer as these program dollars go to waste.
Republicans addressed some of these program integrity issues in the One Big Beautiful Bill--the Working Families Tax Cut Act--when we tightened eligibility and verification standards for Federal healthcare programs, but no degree of oversight and enforcement is as effective as addressing the basic incentives in the system that result in fraud.
I appreciate that some of my Democratic colleagues have finally acknowledged these issues, but the fact remains they have not offered any ideas on how to solve them. Extending these expensive, fraud-ridden subsidies for another 3 years with no reforms--I repeat, no reforms--is a nonstarter. Continuing to pour billions of dollars more into the pockets of big insurance companies and fraudsters will not lower healthcare costs for American families, especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans are not insured through the ObamaCare Marketplace and are therefore not even eligible for these subsidies in the first place.
Senator Cassidy and I have a different plan. The motivating principle
In line with President Trump's call to direct money to patients instead of insurance companies, this approach builds on the success of the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which expanded health savings accounts and their eligibility to be paired with more affordable insurance plans.
These prefunded, patient-driven accounts will help Americans pay for the out-of-pocket costs that are making healthcare unaffordable. Our plan would take some of the money that otherwise would be spent on the COVID bonuses and direct it to health savings accounts attached to ObamaCare bronze or catastrophic plans as monthly deposits totaling $1,000 to $1,500 per year. Families can use that money to cover costs not handled by their insurance policies without waiting for insurance companies to approve their treatment decisions. Because families want the best value for their money, they will seek out the most appropriate treatment. Over time, this should result in lower healthcare costs as providers compete for patients.
Our plan would also fund cost-sharing reduction subsidies, which mitigate out-of-pocket costs for low-income enrollees, reducing premiums by over 10 percent and saving taxpayers money. I will repeat that. Our plan will reduce premiums by 10 percent and save taxpayers money. These cost-sharing reductions would finally change the notion that Americans should simply accept ever-escalating premiums as the norm. In contrast, the Democrats' temporary COVID bonuses do not lower costs or premiums at all. They throw billions of dollars at insurance companies, up to 20 percent of which can go into profit and overhead. Our plan avoids that issue and empowers patients to control their own healthcare.
We cannot transform our broken healthcare system overnight, but we can make real progress. We still have a chance to enact reforms that will do more than paper over the cracks in our healthcare system. We should take that opportunity instead of making the enhanced premium tax credit mistake all over once again. It is time to lay the groundwork for giving Americans more control over their healthcare choices and making quality healthcare more affordable.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, this is a really interesting debate.
Right now, Democrats are advocating to send $26 billion to insurance companies so that you subsidize plans--silver-level plans--which have a $6,000 deductible.
I have asked people who have asked me about this: Do you have $6,000 in your bank account to spend on healthcare before the insurance actually kicks in?
Not one has yet raised his hand.
I think some of those advocating for this among Democrats just don't realize the financial situation American families are in when we ask them to pay $6,000 before the insurance kicks in--$6,000 beyond the premium that they are paying for their health insurance. So people-- patients--are going to see their doctors, and they can't afford the deductible.
When I was practicing, I would say to my patients: What about this procedure? this test? this medicine?
Doctor, I am in my deductible. I cannot afford that.
So, to have a $6,000 deductible is, for many, the same as having no insurance at all.
By the way, it goes without saying, under your traditional medical insurance plan, you don't get eyeglasses, and you don't get your teeth cleaned. Why not, instead of sending 100 percent of the money to the insurance company, of which they take 20 percent for profit and overhead, we send 100 percent to the patient. Then she can spend it on the services that she knows she needs. This is kind of, if you will, the Republican plan, and I will tilt it this way so those in the audience can see because they represent the American people.
Under the Democratic plan, they want to send 100 percent of the money to the insurance company that takes 20 percent for profit and overhead, and only 80 percent goes for patient care, but to get that 80 percent, you have got to ask permission.
We, the Republicans, want to give the money to the patient so that she can pay for her physician, her dentist, her drugs, her eyeglasses. She gets the money, and she can get the healthcare that she knows she needs as opposed to the healthcare that she gets permission from her insurance company to get. To put it simply, we want power to the patient, not profit to the insurance company.
Now, the other side is going to claim: ``Oh, no. Wait. No, no, no, no''; that, in some way, the plan we are proposing does not work out financially for the American people. You are not lowering their premiums. You are not helping them with their first-dollar cost.
So here is a prospective plan for my State for a couple 55 years old, with a 20- and 21-year-old on their insurance policy, at 500 percent of the Federal poverty level. The bronze plan is $2,250 per month. The silver plan is significantly more expensive. It is $6,000 more expensive a year. It is almost $3,000. Under our plan, everybody up to age 49 gets $1,000 into their health savings account. If it is a family account, it goes into the family account, and those over 49 get $1,500. So this family of four, with those ages, gets $5,000 into their health savings account. It is $5,000 so that, when I go to the doctor and I have got an earache and I need medicine, the health savings account pays for the doctor's visit, and the health savings account pays for the medicine.
Contrast that with what Democrats want. They want a plan which is $6,000 more a month. The net deductible is higher, and you don't have $5,000 to begin paying for your medical bill. You have got no money whatsoever, and on that first trip to the doctor, you are paying out of your purse; you are paying out of your pocketbook.
This is the plan that works for the American people? ``Not.''
When I was a physician--but no. As somebody who had three children, this is not the plan that would have worked for my family.
Republicans are trying to meet the American people where we know they are, not some theoretical ``oh, that is where they should be.'' Most Americans don't have $6,000 to pay for healthcare before they get it billed by the insurance.
So let's do just kind of a side-by-side comparison. Here is the difference between the two accounts.
Who gets the money?
Under their plan, the insurance companies. Under our plan, the patients and families.
What can the money be used for?
Well, here it is subsidized premiums, which means that the insurance company gets it and takes 20 percent for the deductible and copay.
Under our plan, you can use it for your doctor visit, your x rays, to see your dentist, your glasses, or your prescriptions. This is real medical care, not something the insurance company permits you to have.
Who makes the decision?
Under their plan, the insurance company. Under our plan, power to the patient.
We want that patient--we want that mama; we want that wife because they are the ones who always make the decisions on healthcare--to be the one who has the power.
Contributes to lower cost?
Under their plan, no, because it goes to the insurance company that continues to pay those higher rates.
To the patient, if you give her this money, you have got $5,000 to spend it wisely. She is going to say: Wait a second. The x ray is $150 here and $500 there. I am going to where it is cheaper, not more expensive.
I can tell you, when that begins to happen, the people who are more expensive will begin to lower their prices. This is a plan that by sending it to the patient for real care, to the patients with the power, you empower the patient to shop, driving competition and lowering healthcare costs.
We just heard from Senator Crapo. Under the plan that my Democratic colleagues support, we have seen widespread fraud and unauthorized enrollment.
Under our plan, if you have got a health savings account, it is pretty easy. I just signed up for a similar type of account on my healthcare. You have got to show who you are. It is not really hard. It took me about 5 minutes,
So I have called some of my Democratic colleagues. Let me start over. I have been asked by the press: Why wouldn't Democrats want this? I mean, why would they not want 100 percent of the money going to the patient instead of 100 percent of it going to the insurance company, and the insurance company takes 20 percent for profit and for overhead? Why wouldn't Democrats want to give power to the patient so that she can shop for a better deal, instilling competition, which ultimately lowers costs? Why would Democrats not want a system which begins to squeeze out the fraud that Senator Crapo pointed out is so rampant in this program?
I just shrugged my shoulders. I am not sure. As I say in my Spanish language class, ``digame.'' I am not quite sure I follow.
Then I heard Minority Leader Schumer explain that this is all about Hyde. They are afraid that our plan will not allow abortions, so they are going to continue to send the money to the insurance companies, subsidizing premiums, profit for the insurance companies, contributing to healthcare inflation and with unchecked fraud--all because of what is called the Hyde amendment.
By the way, what is the Hyde amendment?
For those watching, the Federal Government, consistent with the will of the American people, has made a decision not to spend Federal dollars to pay for abortion. That is what the Hyde amendment is. For most Republicans, that is an important part of our position, and Democrats have decided that they are willing to forgo all of these advantages in order to protect insurance companies paying for abortion.
Let me tell you the ultimate irony in that. When ObamaCare passed, President Obama made a deal in which these plans were not supposed to pay for abortion. Section 1303 of the ObamaCare law, if I remember correctly, said that these dollars are not supposed to pay for abortion.
Democrats are defending dollars paying for abortion. Either they are going to acknowledge that insurance companies are ignoring the law, in which case--wait--we are going to enable insurance companies to break the law or they are attempting to introduce a source of funding for abortion that President Obama himself did not include.
Now, if your rationale is to send 100 percent to the insurance companies instead of 100 percent to the patient to subsidize premiums instead of paying for real doctor care--they let the insurance companies make the decision instead of the patient--and to not contribute to lowering costs versus empowering patients to shop for a better deal and, with competition, lowering healthcare costs--and, by the way, did I point out they can get a lower premium with $5,000 in a health savings account for that family that otherwise could not afford care because you are trying to introduce a new right to abortion in a Federal insurance policy? Be honest with the American people. Either the original ObamaCare law is being ignored or you are trying to establish a new right.
I have said before that we need to find a way that the American people can afford their insurance. Absolutely, we need to find that way. I have said repeatedly I don't want a Republican plan; I don't want a Democratic plan. I want an American plan, a plan that works for our fellow Americans so that they can afford the insurance that this Republican absolutely wants them to have, but we have got to do it in a way in which they have real insurance, not a policy with a $6,000 deductible, with lots of fraud associated with it, and which does nothing to achieve the goals that we know we need.
I don't see why Republicans merely pointing out that under the ObamaCare law this was not to pay for abortion in the first place should be the reason that we cannot protect Americans from these $6,000 deductibles.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, when the Affordable Care Act became law, President Obama promised affordable healthcare. Contrary to Obama's promises, in reality, ObamaCare has spiked health insurance premiums and led to higher costs.
Instead of fixing ObamaCare and lowering costs, Democrats established a new, temporary COVID subsidy for wealthy households--temporary. That ``temporary'' ends December 31. Democrats want to extend it way beyond that. It is another example of a temporary program never being very temporary. So this temporary subsidy has driven more taxpayer dollars into broken systems where premiums keep going up and more money is shoved to insurance companies.
Now, remember the promises of 2010--ObamaCare's passage that year. It promised to bring down healthcare costs by $2,500, and we see now, 15 years later, it is up at least $5,000. So you can see the promise in 2010 by President Obama was off by $7,500.
I want to explain how we got here, discuss my concerns about fraud, waste, and abuse in ObamaCare, and provide some commonsense solutions to bring down healthcare costs.
When ObamaCare became law, it established taxpayer-funded subsidies through the Federal Health Insurance Marketplace to reduce a household's monthly insurance premiums. However, these subsidies go directly to insurance companies, not to the consumer.
In the United States today, the median household income is $84,000 a year. Permanent law gives ObamaCare premium subsidies to a family of three making up to four times the Federal poverty line, which is about $106,000 a year. That means that someone making $20,000 more than the median household income is eligible for a subsidy under permanent law.
I assume the ObamaCare authors probably figured households making much more than the median household income made enough money to buy insurance without taxpayers subsidizing it.
Nothing in this debate takes away middle-income households' subsidies. A family making up to $106,000 is at 400 percent of the poverty line. Let me make it very clear, those families are eligible for a subsidy today, next year, the year after, and so on until the law is changed, and I don't expect it will be changed.
In 2021, things changed. It was supposed to be temporary. As I pointed out, temporary laws in this country soon become permanent. In 2021, the Democrats passed their partisan reconciliation law that temporarily lifted the income cap on ObamaCare subsidies. Now, that was supposed to be temporary. The cap, which was at four times the poverty line, was removed temporarily in the name of COVID. In other words, the country was facing a very dramatic health issue. The Federal Government shut down the economy, 22 million people were unemployed, and we didn't really know what it was all about.
Now, we learned a lot of lessons from that, and those lessons will not be repeated hopefully. But this temporary program was set up in this time of great distress about what the future held.
Now, as a result of this temporary program because of ObamaCare and COVID, wealthy households making $600,000, which is well above the median household income, are eligible for the temporary taxpayer-funded ObamaCare subsidies or better known as COVID bonuses. The expansion of ObamaCare subsidies for wealthy earners has cost billions, and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projections for its costs keep going up.
In 2021, anticipating some of these problems, I wrote a letter to the then-Health and Human Services Secretary and also the IRS Commissioner. In that letter, I expressed concern about the lack of fiscal responsibility in the ObamaCare subsidy expansion and how that expansion would lead to more waste, fraud, and abuse. At the time, the DHS Secretary responded saying:
The Health and Human Services Secretary outlined all the ways that the Agency was preventing fraud, waste, and abuse.
I can only conclude that the Biden administration's response was just empty rhetoric. Since my letter to the HHS Secretary, the Government Accountability Office has found ongoing fraud risks in these ObamaCare subsidies.
In the last 2 years, the Government Accountability Office successfully enrolled 96 percent of its fictitious applicants in ObamaCare. I really mean fictitious people. This was a test by the Government Accountability Office to see how easy it was to defraud.
Now, when they started it out, they didn't know that that might be the result, but I am going to tell you that that is the result. For example, the Government Accountability Office succeeded in enrolling these fake people despite rules requiring documentation to confirm citizenship status and income. The Government Accountability Office also found that HHS had let Social Security numbers be misused by allowing the same number to be used more than once. The Agency also failed to match enrollment data with Social Security's death data and chose not to reconcile tax credit overpayments with IRS tax data.
Fraud, waste, and abuse don't stop with those examples. This summer, the Trump administration found that 1.6 million people were dually enrolled in 2024 in Medicaid and ObamaCare, leading to billions in waste. Now, understand, 1.6 million people having 2 sources of healthcare and then, at the same time, we keep telling the public how many people in this country--the millions that don't have any insurance at all, and here we have 1.6 million people who were enrolled in 2 healthcare systems.
My own oversight has shown how billions in ObamaCare subsidy overpayments were not collected and--can you believe this?--rules let billions go uncollected.
The COVID bonuses created incentives to misestimate income to qualify for larger ObamaCare subsidies, leading to billions of wastes--yes, higher income people reporting lower income than they actually had just to get a government subsidy.
Lastly, insurance agents are using targeted internet ads to fraudulently enroll consumers with false income verification extension requests.
Extending the COVID bonus permanently increases the deficit by $350 billion and lets billions more go to fraud, waste, and abuse.
CBO has found that 3.9 million Americans would lose their employer- sponsored health insurance if we make these subsidies for wealthy earners permanent. In other words, because of a government program that was supposed to be temporary--if it is continued, employers are smart enough to stop their healthcare program, health insurance program, and turn it over to the government and the government subsidy that goes with it.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will suggest that they are only asking for another ``temporary'' extension of the COVID bonuses for wealthy households. Yet their bill will cost taxpayers nearly $300 billion, and there are no reforms to stop fraud, waste, and abuse.
Despite warnings from the Government Accountability Office, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last issued a comprehensive fraud risk assessment of ObamaCare subsidies in 2018. Now, the law doesn't require that report every year, but the Government Accountability Office said it ought to be issued every year. So by not issuing that on a regular basis--the Agency failing to update its fraud risk assessment plan--it doesn't surprise me that we have a lot of fraud.
My oversight in 2013 found the Obama administration at that time tried to exempt ObamaCare from certain Federal anti-fraud provisions. Yes, the administration at that time wanted anti-fraud provisions to be ignored. So any wonder why you have an environment for fraud.
The full arsenal of civil and criminal anti-fraud protections must be used. I have introduced the Fraud Risk Assessment of ObamaCare Subsidies Accountability Act. My bill simply requires the Agency to update its fraud risk assessment of ObamaCare and update it yearly.
I am glad the Agency is already working to update its fraud risk assessment, but we must hold the Agency accountable to complete this.
I am glad the Republican-led Congress and the Trump administration have begun cracking down on ObamaCare fraud, waste, and abuse, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill that the President signed on July 4. The new law stops resources from going to illegal immigrants and those not here permanently, establishes improved preenrollment verification, and requires excess subsidies to be repaid. It is a start, but more work needs to be done.
We can lower healthcare costs and increase quality. It starts with expanding access and competition to high-quality, affordable health insurance through health saving accounts, association health plans, and other consumer-driven health plans.
Lowering healthcare costs requires action to reduce prescription drug prices through pharmacy benefit managers and reforming that program. I have been leading the charge to hold PBMs accountable and put sunshine on their opaque business practices.
We also need price transparency. I am a cosponsor of a bill that is entitled Patients Deserve Price Tags Act and supported the Trump administration's efforts to establish price transparency on hospitals and health insurance companies through regulations.
Just like all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I am committed to finding solutions to bring down healthcare costs for American families and not extending government handouts to insurance companies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. President, it seems like it was just yesterday. The year was 2010. I was in the surgeons' lounge, and what I remember on the headline news of the day was Nancy Pelosi saying something to the effect of this: We have got to pass the bill so we can read it.
And I knew this bill had something to do with healthcare. They were calling it the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, as we now know it by-- the ``Not So Affordable Care Act.''
So the doctors and I scrambled, and we said: We better see what is in this bill.
And we said: First of all, gosh, it looks like the insurance companies wrote this bill. The Federal Government is going to give direct subsidies--corporate welfare--to health insurance companies.
It was supposed to max out at $50 billion a year. Today, it is $150 billion a year.
The next thing, when we looked at that bill, we said: My goodness, there is so much in rules and regulations, and we are going to have to take nurses off the floor and turn them into data entry. We are going to have to stay hours at a time, after practice, after office hours, just to do these electronic medical records.
We said that this overregulation was going to lead to consolidation of industry. Here we are 15 years later, and that is exactly what happened.
We have three PBMs controlling 85 percent of prescription drugs. Most every State has one or two healthcare insurance companies controlling the market. There are typically one or two hospital systems controlling healthcare in a large geographical area. The smaller companies can just never keep up.
So what we have seen is 15 years of failed policies. But families deserve real reform, and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to reform, to fix the ``Not So Affordable Care Act,'' ObamaCare.
And of all the things we saw coming, we thought it would be fraud. But when fraud really spiked is when we added these enhanced premium tax credits--the Biden enhanced premium tax credits. And just like the original ACA, these enhanced premium tax credits were voted for only with Democrat votes. And what it allowed is for patients to have health insurance without paying anything toward the premium.
So we had headhunters who went across the country. They got a person's name. They got their birth date. They enrolled them in ObamaCare, and the
One out of three people on ObamaCare never makes an insurance claim. That is because most of them don't even know they are on it. And when there is no money coming out of one of their accounts, they have no idea that they are on it.
I think that to Americans, it is like shoplifting--shoplifting at a grocery store. We all end up paying for that. The rest of the consumers have to pay for the shoplifting. That is what is happening in ObamaCare. Everybody else is paying for that increased premium.
So the first thing that we want to do is to stop the fraud in the Affordable Care Act, and we do that in several ways. How about something as simple as checking IDs? I can't get a hotel room tonight-- when you apply for Medicare, for Social Security, you need an ID. We need to have job verification. We need to check IDs. We need technology to figure out when dead people should have the stipends stop.
The recent GAO report showed that 58,000 dead people were having premiums paid to these insurance companies for an average of about 9 months each. So think of the cost of that to the Federal Government and to taxpayers--58,000 dead people having an insurance premium paid monthly for 9 months before the Federal Government realizes that they are dead.
Probably, a third of that $150 billion a year we are spending on ObamaCare right now is in fraud, waste, and/or abuse.
The next thing we want to talk about is price transparency. Could you imagine--let's just say that, boy, you had a great year, and you are living that American dream, and you are going to go buy a new pickup truck. And, you know, maybe your family usually drove Fords, and maybe your family drove Chevys, but you want a Dodge. So you know you want four-wheel drive. You know you want a nice V-8 engine to be able to pull your boat and to get unstuck when you are out hunting and fishing, but you would like to know the price. So what is the difference between a Dodge four-wheel drive truck, eight-cylinder engine--maybe a HEMI-- versus that Chevy or Ford model which are similar? Could you imagine making that decision without knowing the pricetags?
Could you imagine going into the McDonald's, and you are trying to decide if you want the Big Mac or you want the Filet-O-Fish and not knowing the difference in the prices on that? So why, in healthcare, are we satisfied with not knowing the prices?
So one piece of our solution to solve this riddle of healthcare is to force all healthcare providers to provide prices. So if your doctor says that you need your knee scoped or your doctor says you need an MRI, they can give you a code. You get on your technology, and what the technology shows you, within 60 miles, is all the different facilities that are covered by your insurance and what the cost would be for that procedure and some outcomes as well.
You would be amazed. You can save thousands of dollars on an MRI by doing a little shopping, with the same quality.
You need a joint replaced. You might save $40, $50, $60,000 for having the hip replaced at a surgical hospital as opposed to a traditional hospital setting. And guess what. The infection rates are lower here at this surgical hospital.
So our bill forces, again, all healthcare providers to show you the true costs. This turns patients back into consumers. It is the only industry in America where we don't allow consumerism, and the ACA is just complicating this.
So what our bill does is require, again, all healthcare companies-- healthcare providers--to show you the true costs, no excuses.
Think about the savings of this. Even I underestimated the savings of this. This will mean $1,000 a month per family. If we adopt our pricetags bill, it will save the average American family a thousand dollars a month.
America spends $5 trillion a year on healthcare now--$5 trillion a year. If we give the American consumers pricetags, it is going to save a trillion dollars.
Just like Black Friday, when we had people out there shopping, what is the first thing you want to know? You want to know the prices. And, by the way, 80 percent of healthcare decisions are made by women. And I know these women are expert shoppers. If you give them the technology, if you give them the prices, then they can figure out what they want to buy and where the best place to do it is.
Our third pillar is to bridge the subsidy issue for families. Look, I don't have to tell any American the challenges with the cost of healthcare. I never cared for the subsidies--the Biden-era subsidies. Again, they were passed with all Democrat votes. But here we are, and they are going to expire. The Democrats set them up to expire December 31. It was really a COVID-era extra bonus.
Remember, the other 80 percent of the premiums are still going to be covered. The original Biden-era subsidies are not expiring, and they typically cover about 80 percent of the premiums.
So I am willing to extend those for a year, as long as we get some of these other things, as long as there is long-term reform. We get our pricetag bill. We address the fraud. And then what we would do is slowly start putting money into your healthcare savings account.
Let me say that again. The Federal Government, rather than sending money to the insurance companies, we are going to put money in your healthcare savings account to pay toward your deductibles.
Remember, your deductibles under ObamaCare went from $1,000 a year to $15,000 a year. So our bill would start taking part of that money and turning you into a consumer. You combine our pricetags bill, putting money into your savings accounts, and then we are going to see true consumerism, and we are going to see the cost of healthcare come down 20 percent.
Our next pillar that I would like to talk about is high-risk pool protection. Now, what does that mean? Certainly, ObamaCare did some good things, and one of them was to protect people with preexisting conditions.
You may know, but I was an obstetrician. I delivered a baby every day for 25 years. And the most common preexisting condition that wasn't covered was pregnancy. Less than half of pregnancies are covered--are planned. Excuse me. Less than 50 percent of pregnancies are covered, and people buy their health insurance. They didn't think they needed maternity coverage. But guess what. They did.
So I want to make sure everyone's preexisting conditions are covered. I want everyone to have meaningful, affordable access to healthcare, and I want to make sure we protect this. But one way we protect that issue and drive the cost of healthcare down is a reinsurance pool--a high-risk, invisible reinsurance pool--so that when any person in America hits a certain spending amount, they would go into this high- risk pool. They would be State run. We need State money in the game as well.
Everybody that is getting insurance through that State needs to be contributing--probably $3, $4 a month--to that high-risk pool as well. And if the insurance companies knew that you were going to be able to grasp out those outliers, it is going to bring the premiums down for everybody else.
So we talk a lot about CSRs. You could take half of the money that we would save by funding the CSRs and put that money into the start of high-risk pools, and all of a sudden, you have got something going here. If you would implement our plan, I really do think you are going to see healthcare costs go down by a third, maybe 50 percent, but at least by a third. Between pricetags, between funding your HSAs, by making patients consumers, by setting up these high-risk pools, we are going to start decreasing the costs of healthcare for everybody.
So those are our five pillars. Let's stop the fraud. Let's give patients pricetags. Let's bridge the subsidy. I am willing to include the subsidy for a year longer if we start bridging to a better future, where we are not throwing good money after bad money. We set up the high-risk pools, and you end up with lower costs for patients.
We are fighting for patients. We are fighting for hard-working Americans.
This plan was not made overnight. This plan, as I said, started really back in 2010 in a surgeons' lounge.
And when I was elected to come here in 2016, this is one of my three or four issues that I wanted to address. And I have continued to revise and refine and improve this plan from year to year to meet this moment. In fact, it was 2018 that now-Speaker Mike Johnson and I put together a comprehensive replacement bill for the ACA.
And here we are today, no better off. Prices are skyrocketing, and we continue to struggle.
I am encouraged. I think we have some momentum. I continue discussions across the aisle. And what I hear my friends across the aisle saying is that we share a lot of the same goals. We want Americans to have affordable, meaningful healthcare.
And by the way, again, a $15,000 deductible for a family making $120,000 a year--that $15,000 deductible is not the same as access to care.
This is not a conclusive list. There needs to be more. There are more things we can do. We need to expand healthcare association plans. We need to allow insurance to be sold across State lines. We need to take on the PBMs. This is just the start, but this would be a backbone. And I don't know why any of my friends across the aisle would be opposed to any one of these particular pillars.
Our text for our bill is out. The legislative text is out there now. We welcome cosponsors. We welcome this as an opportunity to build toward a bipartisan bill in January.
Americans deserve transparency. They deserve accountability. They deserve affordability. And this plan delivers it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Unanimous Consent Request: S. 1829 (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, I am going to raise a different issue on the floor, and I am going to be joined in that issue by the cosponsor of the legislation, Senator Hawley of Missouri. So I will speak to the measure and then defer to him and then make a motion, which I believe the Senator from Oregon Senator Wyden is going to respond to.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask the Senate to pass the STOP CSAM Act, bipartisan legislation that would finally open the courthouse doors to survivors of child exploitation and their families.
Too many parents in America live in fear every time their child logs into a phone, a tablet, or video game console. They know the internet has, unfortunately, become a hunting ground for predators of children.
Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee learned more about the horrors facing our children online, and we heard from one of those families.
Three years ago, 17-year-old James Woods--an honor student, an accomplished track athlete from the State of Ohio--died by suicide after being targeted by predators on Instagram. We asked his mother today: How long did this relationship online last?
She said: Start to finish--the finish was the end of her son's life-- 19 hours.
They tricked James into sending them sexually explicit photos, and they threatened to ruin his life if he didn't pay them to destroy the photos. His tormentors sent him 200 messages in 19 hours, encouraging, finally, that he end his life, which he ultimately did.
In January 2022, 13-year-old Jay Taylor--an artistic, compassionate child from the State of Washington, gifted in math--died by suicide after being targeted by predators on Discord. Jay was pursued by a group who used Discord to bully him into taking his own life, which was live-streamed for his abusers to watch.
These are two examples of cruelty and danger for kids that they can encounter on online platforms. How do we do something to stop this?
In 2014, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, called NCMEC, received 1.1 million cyber tips of child sexual abuse material, known as CSAM. By 2023, less than 10 years later, the number of cyber tips have exploded to 36 million--from 1 million to 36 million--and every one of those reports represents a child harmed, exploited, and degraded.
As I have heard and learned more about the horrors of online child sexual exploitation, I have made it my mission to try to put an end to it. That is why I worked with survivors, prosecutors, law enforcement, victim advocates, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to write a bill that responds with the urgency this situation demands. The bill is called STOP CSAM. The lead sponsor, beginning this year, is Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, and the cosponsor is Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. I would like to thank Senator Hawley for being the lead sponsor who voted unanimously with the Judiciary Committee to advance this bill last year.
And I want to recognize the extraordinary survivors and advocates who continue to make this legislation possible by their impassioned pleas. Unfortunately, due to Big Tech's deep pockets, it has not been easy to pass a law to finally hold the tech industry accountable for the harms they cause.
Ask any parent or child walking around holding a cell phone if they are worried about what is going on, on that cell phone, and I will tell you they are. They hope that their children are doing the right things and not being lured into a trap by somebody on the other end of the line. The same thing, of course, is true with computers.
So when STOP CSAM didn't pass the Senate last year, Senator Hawley and I were determined to bring it up this year.
Because Big Tech has failed to take the steps to keep kids safe when they are online, it is imperative that Congress do something for the parents and the children who are victims.
The STOP CSAM Act takes a comprehensive approach to stemming online childhood exploitation. Most significantly, it creates accountability. It pierces the broad immunity granted to Big Tech by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
I can't think of another element of our economy that is free from any worry of being sued. If you drive in a haphazard and reckless way, you will be held responsible. But when it comes to this industry, they conduct their business with little or no regard for the victims. They are immune from responsibility under section 230.
STOP CSAM, which we bring to the floor today, changes it. It does one simple thing: It allows the victims to sue tech platforms and app stores that promote or aid and abet online child sex exploitation.
Survivors deserve a day in court. I just guarantee you, if there is civil liability on the line here, the industry is going to change and rework their online offerings to protect children. Right now, they could give a darn.
STOP CSAM also forces transparency onto Big Tech by requiring the companies to submit annual reports describing their efforts to protect children. This is more than a box-checking exercise. This bill requires providers to disclose concrete steps they are taking to protect children.
We have all seen the headlines. We all know the worry. Tech companies promise to improve but only repeat the same conduct over and over again at the expense of children.
Last year, half of all cyber tips provided by tech companies included insufficient information to be actionable by law enforcement. Civil liability will change that.
The STOP CSAM Act passed unanimously out of the subcommittee this summer. That unanimity is no accident. It reflects an understanding of what we need to do to protect children.
I am honored to have as my colleague in this effort Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, and I yield the floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Durbin for his incredible leadership on this issue. It is truly a privilege to partner with him on this effort.
And I just want to say that the premise of this bill is very simple. It is simply this: that our children are not safe online. And I know that because the statistics tell the story. Just looking at the number of reports of child
The data does not lie. Our children are not safe. But I also know it because whistleblowers tell us. The experts from these companies tell us the truth. I will never forget sitting in the Senate Judiciary Committee and listening to whistleblowers from Meta talk about the steps their company had taken to target their products toward children. And I asked one of these whistleblowers: How many kids who come to your platform would you estimate are exposed to child sex abuse material?
She thought for a moment, and then she said: I would say 100 percent.
I said: Wait a minute. A hundred percent? One hundred percent?
She said: Every child who gets on a Meta platform--whether it is virtual reality, whether it is Instagram, whether it is Facebook itself--every child who is on that platform for any length of time will be exposed to child sex abuse material, every single child.
The tech companies themselves tell us, but I also know our kids aren't safe online because I am a father of three children. My oldest is 13 now. I have got a 10-year-old and a 5-year-old. And my kids don't have devices. They don't have phones, and I am going to keep it that way as long as I possibly can. But I tell you what, my wife and I every day worry about what our children will be exposed to online.
And I have listened to parent after parent come before this body, take an oath, and testify about the ordeals their own children have been through.
Another employee at Meta testified about his own child--a daughter-- who signed up for an Instagram account and almost immediately was bombarded by predators and sex abusers looking at her images, direct messaging her, soliciting her for various sexual acts. It caused him to ask himself: What are we doing at these tech companies? Is there no amount of decency? Is there no respect for the basic privacy and security of our children? Our children are not safe online.
And I also want to say that this bill is based on another important principle, a simple one, which is that no amount of corporate profit justifies the exploitation of our children. All the Big Tech companies are rich beyond belief. They are the wealthiest companies, the richest, biggest companies, not just in America, not just in the world, but in the history of the world.
But I just want to say that no amount of money justifies subjecting our children to sexual abuse. No amount of money justifies ``sextortion'' of children on these platforms.
I don't care what Facebook's market cap is today or tomorrow. I don't care how much money Google makes next quarter. It does not justify the degradation of American children, not now, not ever. And this body has a moral obligation to stand for that principle and to vindicate it for every parent and every child in America. It is why we are here. It is our obligation and our responsibility, and that is what this bill does.
This is a very simple bill, as Senator Durbin described. It simply allows the victims of sex abuse material or their parents to get into court and to make their case against these companies. And it is not unfair to the companies. The companies are held to a very simple standard: Did they knowingly or recklessly host this content?
Now, let me just say this: We all know that these companies will deploy algorithms to the end of the Earth in order to target our kids, in order to advertise to our kids. They know every detail. Every scintilla of action that occurs on their platforms, they know about it because they are making money off of it.
And yet when we bring them before this body and put them under oath, the executives of these companies say: Oh, we couldn't possibly get rid of all the CSAM, all the sex abuse material. We just don't have the technology for it.
Oh, yes, they do. They do. But they don't want to root out the CSAM because they are making money on it because sex material online drives engagement online, which drives more eyeballs online, which drives advertising dollars online, and that is what they care most about.
It is time to give victims and parents the rights that every other American has, which is to get into court and to have their day in court and to protect their children.
This bill doesn't touch encryption. It doesn't destroy privacy rights. It protects all of those things, but, above all, it protects children. It protects our children online, and it is long overdue.
I will just finish with this: I wish I could persuade my colleague, who I think will soon object, to agree with us on this, but I certainly respect his view. The scandal is not that 1 or 2 or 10 or 20 Senators would take a different point of view. That is fine. The real scandal here is this bill cannot get a vote on the floor of this Senate. It passed unanimously--not once but twice out of committee--unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee of the United States.
Now, for years in a row, it can't get so much as a vote on the floor of the Senate. That is why Senator Durbin is here today. That is why I am here today. That is a scandal. It is absolutely indefensible.
I haven't heard a word of explanation, but I know the reason. The reason is the Big Tech companies are opposed to it, and the reason for that is the Big Tech companies would lose money. And they will spend no amount of money--there will be no limit to what they would spend to stop legislation that they don't want from moving on this floor.
It is time this body demonstrated its independence. It is time to demonstrate our loyalty to the people who put us here, not the corporations that write the checks and call the shots and run the TV ads and make their threats of their campaign contributions.
It is enough of that. It doesn't say ``We the corporations'' in our Constitution. It says ``We the People.'' It is time for the people to have their say. It is time for this body to vindicate their rights. It is time for us to vote on this bill.
I yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
In a few minutes, we made the case. When a conservative Missouri Republican and a progressive Illinois Democrat can agree on a measure this important to the families of America, I think it is a unique message.
How many times are we told back home: For God's sake, stop playing politics. If you must, compromise, but get something done.
And, certainly, protecting our children is the highest possible priority.
These measures, as Senator Hawley alluded to, passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Trust me, the 20-plus members of that committee span the political spectrum. They all voted for these measures. That is why we bring them to the floor.
For those who are following the debate, we are going to have a voice vote pretty soon, I assume. The question is going to be, Are we going to pass this or not? You are going to hear me make a motion. Then, I believe the Senator from Oregon is going to seek recognition. I will make the motion as to whether we should pass the measure we just described.
Here is the motion. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 106, S. 1829; further, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be considered and agreed to, and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Reserving the right to object, I don't often disagree with my friend and longtime colleague from Illinois, and I very much share the stated goals of the STOP CSAM Act. Child sexual abuse material is a toxic plague on the internet. There are real victims who need support and criminals who have to be hunted down and locked up. I don't take a back seat to anybody when it comes to helping kids and punishing predators.
Last Congress, Senator Durbin and I compromised on a different version of this bill and agreed to let that version pass by unanimous consent.
Let me say that again. Last Congress, we reached agreement on a version of this bill that could have passed unanimously.
Today, to my regret, the sponsors have chosen to abandon those negotiations and instead are seeking to advance what I consider to be a dangerous bill that would make internet users unsafe. That is because the bill would weaken the single strongest technology that protects kids and families online. That is strong encryption. It will make it easier to punish sites using encryption to secure private conversations and personal devices.
While STOP CSAM sponsors claim that their bill does not target encryption, the bill explicitly allows courts to punish companies that offer strong encryption. It also would encourage scanning of content on users' phones or computers before information is sent over the internet, which has, in my view, the same consequences as breaking encryption.
Weakening encryption and other security technologies is the single biggest gift that can be given to the predators and dangerous criminals who want to stalk and spy on kids. Sexual predators will have a far easier time stealing and extorting photographs of children, tracking their phones, and spying on their private messages when encryption is breached.
Doing so threatens the privacy and security of every single law- abiding American.
I heard some talk about who supports the bill. Let me tell you who supports the bill. It is Big Tech. Google and X have endorsed that. Let me repeat that. Google and X have endorsed this bill. It is the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union who oppose it.
This is really about who are you for. I am here for women who depend on encryption to seek reproductive healthcare information. I am here for journalists reporting on sensitive stories in places where their messages could be intercepted and used against them. I am here for kids and teenagers seeking information about immigration laws as Donald Trump continues a brutal crackdown.
The key to better protecting kids online is to do what is effective, not what only sounds effective. Congress ought to focus our energy on giving law enforcement officials the tools they need to find and prosecute criminals responsible for exploiting children and spreading vile abuse materials online and to help prevent children from becoming victims in the first place. I repeatedly have given that support to prosecutors and law enforcement officials to do more to protect kids from being exploited.
I remain open to revisiting conversations with the bill's sponsors to get back to a version that doesn't make the internet less safe. We did find a compromise in the last Congress, and I want to say to my longtime friend Senator Durbin and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that I am willing to work together to find another such compromise.
I urge, for example, my colleagues to support my bipartisan Invest in Kids' Safety Act, which I will shortly reintroduce. The bill would direct $5 billion in mandatory funding to do three things: one, give law enforcement agencies the tools and personnel they need to catch the predators who create and spread CSAM; two, fund community-based programs to prevent at-risk kids from becoming victims in the first place; and three, invest in programs to support survivors of abuse. Any legislation that doesn't include those pieces is missing the point, and that is why I object today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
National Defense Authorization Act (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, one of the things we have to do before we open our Christmas presents in a couple of weeks is to pass the National Defense Authorization Act. This is one of the rare instances-- and you can count them on maybe one hand--where we actually have good bipartisan cooperation, and it is for a good cause. It is in the defense of our Nation and in support of the men and women who wear the uniform and who keep us safe.
The Senate and the House have now released a final text that has been reconciled between the House and the Senate versions. All that remains now is for the House and then the Senate to pass the final version and send it to President Trump for his signature.
The National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation we pass each year. I believe we have done it-- without exception, I want to say--for 63, 64 years in a row.
Now, I wasn't here for each of those years, but that is the history that has been handed down.
As I said, this legislation is critically important because it makes sure that our military has the necessary resources to achieve the missions of today and rise to the challenges of tomorrow. As we have seen even in the battlefield in Ukraine, the nature of modern warfare has changed dramatically with the advent of the ubiquity of drones. With even poor countries like Yemen, where the Houthis send drones into countries like Israel or attack merchant ships in the Red Sea, we have had to use million-dollar missiles to shoot down basically cheap drones. Well, you can't continue that, you can't sustain that, so it is important that we update and modernize our military according to the threats and the technology available today.
Given our rather inconsistent record in other must-pass legislation, this is an impressive run of 56 years, my notes remind me, underscoring the importance the U.S. Congress has always placed on ensuring the fact that we have the strongest military in the world. We have the strongest military in the world not in order to fight but in order not to have to fight--in order to maintain deterrence. That is what President Reagan talked about and what President Trump has talked about--peace through strength. That comes with deterrence.
We are demonstrating the fact that we are committed to the defense of our Nation and our friends and allies around the world and that we are not afraid to make that investment. Any country that might decide to change the status quo and start a military conflict knows from the outset they are likely doomed to fail.
This year's NDAA, the Defense authorization bill, includes numerous important policies to strengthen our national defense, but perhaps the biggest success in this year's annual authorization bill is a significant win against the Chinese Communist Party. What I am referring to specifically is a provision that is in the reconciled bill that creates a vehicle for transparency on outbound investment from the United States into China.
We have known for decades now that China has attracted manufacturing from around the world into that country, to the detriment of manufacturing jobs here in America, and that they have used that technology they have learned and the workforce training that has gone along with it in order now to build weapons systems and threaten peace in the Indo-Pacific and threaten the United States--our position of dominance--when it comes to national security.
This provision that I will speak more to in a moment has been many years in the making. It goes back to 2021.
I tell people that the most important lesson I have learned here in the U.S. Senate is perseverance. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again, and that is what we did here. So in 2021, I partnered with then-Senator Casey on the initial outbound legislation. We worked through several different iterations of this legislation and listened to the input from stakeholders around the Nation--all with the goal of having notification, prohibition with regard to the investment of American dollars in China.
In 2023, I introduced the Outbound Investment Transparency Act and pushed for its inclusion in the Defense authorization bill that year. The Senate voted 91 to 6 to include my amendment in the annual Defense bill that year. Obviously, this enjoys broad bipartisan support in recognizing the challenge and indeed the threat that China could pose. It is highly unusual, as we know now, to see that level of agreement in Congress, but given the preeminence of the threat, nearly every one of my colleagues supported that provision.
Unfortunately, after nearly unanimous consensus that this amendment was needed to counter the rise of the Chinese Communist Party, that provision was dropped when the House and the Senate went to conference.
Then, last year--back again--I continued to push for this provision and was adamant that we had no time to lose. Even so, the language on outbound investment was once again dropped from the Defense authorization bill.
I want to credit Speaker Johnson, who has led a valiant effort in the House to include this provision in the end-of-year continuing resolution, but of course, when everybody tried to add their favorite policy rider to the continuing resolution at the end of last year, the bill collapsed under its own weight, and all of those outside provisions were stripped out. Once again, we kicked the can down the road.
Now, if we were simply talking about some relatively routine function, like funding a bridge, this might have been something par for the course, but that is not what we are dealing with here. I am confident in saying we are living in one of the most dangerous times since the Second World War, and China is our most significant adversary.
President Xi has signaled that he intends to reincorporate Taiwan in 2027 into the Chinese nation. As we approach the end of 2025, this is just a little more than a year away.
China has made no secret also of joining hands with Russia in conducting joint military exercises. We see now, when it comes to Ukraine, where North Korea, Russia, China, and even Iran--sort of the hit list of greatest military threats--are joined together in opposition to the United States and Europe in supporting the people of Ukraine. So they have now locked arms against us.
Meanwhile, in the South China Sea, which is a very important international lane of commerce, China continues to aggressively expand its control by conducting military drills and creating islands out of shoals and other pieces of territory. They have deployed surveillance tools and inflamed tensions with their neighboring countries, like Vietnam and the Philippines, in an attempt to intimidate them.
Let's not forget they are the powerhouse behind the drug crisis we are facing at home as well. I am talking about the fentanyl crisis. It is well established that fentanyl has been the leading cause of death in America of young
But one thing is abundantly clear from all of this: China is not a threat we can ignore.
Failure to address this provision on outbound investment is not just to ignore the threat of China but to actively help them build up their own defense arsenal and threaten peace in the Indo-Pacific.
At this very moment, U.S. companies are investing money in China. They are bankrolling China's capabilities in semiconductors, quantum computing, hypersonic systems, and artificial intelligence. We are in a competition with China in each of those areas, so why in the world would we blindly allow American investors to invest in our opponent and help them defeat us in the race in each of these areas of technology? It is estimated that U.S. investments in Chinese companies currently total about $2.3 trillion in market value. That was by the end of 2020. It included $21 billion in semiconductors, $54 billion in military companies, and $221 billion in artificial intelligence.
Part of the problem is that China doesn't recognize a separation between commercial enterprises and their military. They have a law that forces their commercial enterprises to share information with their military. It is called military-civil fusion. So there is no way to just say ``Well, we are just investing, in America, in Chinese businesses; we are not investing in the military.'' It is impossible for that to be true given the Chinese law enforcing military-civil fusion. So when you invest in China to help them build their capacity in any one of these areas, you are helping the Chinese military that one day may be an adversary--an open adversary--of the United States and our friends and allies.
How can we expect the United States to dominate in the artificial intelligence frontier if our companies are investing in the rise of our biggest competitor? We have heard in the Foreign Relations Committee, in a subcommittee that Chairman Ricketts chaired recently, that this is the No. 1 race between China and the United States. It is who is going to perfect the use of artificial intelligence and to use it not only for commercial purposes but to defend the Nation or to use it for aggressive offensive purposes. So wouldn't we want to know if American companies are investing in the very technology China will try to use to defeat us?
Again, China is more than just a commercial competitor. Every dollar that the United States invests in a Chinese company is a dollar that is going toward the potential production of weapons that may one day be used to kill American soldiers.
Let me say that once more. Every dollar invested in China by a U.S. investor into a Chinese company is a dollar that is going toward the potential production of weapons and technology that one day may be used to kill Americans.
It is mind-boggling to me that anyone in the U.S. Government would not see the urgency of this policy of outbound investment transparency. Once we have a good picture of exactly what is going on, we as policymakers can decide what, if any, other policies we need to enact to protect our country, but if we don't know because there is no requirement to notify the government about what those investments look like and what the nature of those investments is, we are completely blind--I would say willfully blind--to that growing threat.
Those who have thrown up roadblocks against this provision over the last 3 years are working directly, whether they know it or not, in the interests of the Chinese Communist Party and directly, whether they know it or not, against the interests of the people they represent--the American people. But now, after nearly 5 years of work from Members in both Chambers, I am proud to say the language that we have proposed to address outbound investment transparency is in the final version of this year's National Defense Authorization Act. The House, as I said earlier, will vote this week, and I look forward to supporting that provision again in the Senate.
This has been a marathon, and I am thankful to the majority leader, Senator Thune. I mentioned the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. I would add a number of other names: Senator Tim Scott, Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Dan Sullivan, and Representative Andy Barr in the House of Representatives--all of whom will have contributed to this success when we pass the bill.
The Chinese Communist Party may have successfully evaded our scrutiny for the past few years, but this is the year we will finally put the nail in the coffin and open our eyes to the growing challenge that China represents--again, not just as a commercial, economic competitor but as a potential military competitor on the battlefield. That is something none of us want. The best way for us to prevent that from happening is to deter China, and you don't deter them by having American dollars invested in the very military capability that they could use to fight us and defeat us and our allies in the Indo-Pacific.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
H.J. RES. 131 and S.J. RES. 91
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' 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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision''--(Rep.
Background: The History of Federal Direction on the Coastal Plain
Congressional Review Act: Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program
