We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
16Recognizing the 100th Trek to the Nation's Christmas Tree
17Messages From the President
18Presidential Message
19Report of the Continuation of the National Emergency That Was Originally Declared in Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, With Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuse and Corruption: Pm 44
20Report of the Continuation of the National Emergency That Was Originally Declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, With Respect to Global Illicit Drug Trafficking: Pm 45
21Executive Reports of Committee
22Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions
23Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
27Senate Resolution 542: Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Southeast Asian Refugee Resettlement and the Many Contributions and Sacrifices of Southeast Asian Americans to the United States
28Senate Resolution 543: Commending Centenary College of Louisiana on the Occasion of Its Bicentennial and Its Years of Service to the State of Louisiana and the United States
47Accepting the Request to Revoke the Charter of Incorporation of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota at the Request of That Community
54Technical Corrections to the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act, Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, and Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act
Forty bills and five resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 3430-3469, and S. Res. 541-545.
Pages S8669-71
Measures Passed
En Bloc Consideration of Certain Nominations: By 52 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. EX. 645), Senate agreed to S. Res. 532, authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
Page S8655
Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act
Senate passed H.R. 165, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to complete all actions necessary for certain land to be held in restricted fee status by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
Pages S8684-85, S8685
BADGES for Native Communities Act
Senate passed S. 390, to require Federal law enforcement agencies to report on cases of missing or murdered Indians.
Pages S8684-85, S8685-87
Veterinary Services to Improve Public Health in Rural Communities Act
Senate passed S. 620, to provide public health veterinary services to Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations for rabies prevention.
Pages S8684-85, S8687
Lower Sioux Indian Community
Senate passed S. 621, to accept the request to revoke the charter of incorporation of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota at the request of that Community.
Pages S8684-85, S8687
Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Amendments Act
Senate passed S. 622, to amend the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation Restoration Act to provide for the transfer of additional Federal land to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
Pages S8684-85, S8687-88
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act
Senate passed S. 642, to provide compensation to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for the taking without just compensation of land by the United States inside the exterior boundaries of the L'Anse Indian Reservation that were guaranteed to the Community under a treaty signed in 1854.
Pages S8684-85, S8688-89
Tribal Forest Protection Act Amendments Act
Senate passed S. 719, to amend the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 to improve that Act.
Pages S8684-85, S8689
Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act
Senate passed S. 723, to require the Bureau of Indian Affairs to process and complete all mortgage packages associated with residential and business mortgages on Indian land by certain deadlines.
Pages S8684-85, S8689-91
Technical Correction to the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement Act
Senate passed S. 546, to amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to make a technical correction to the water rights settlement for the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation.
Pages S8684-85, S8691
Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act
Senate passed S. 240, to amend the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 to make improvements to that Act.
Pages S8684-85, S8691-92
Technical Corrections to the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act, Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, and Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act
Senate passed S. 640, to amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to make a technical correction to the Navajo Nation Water Resources Development Trust Fund, to amend the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 to make technical corrections to the Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund and Aamodt Settlement Pueblos' Fund, after agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Pages S8684-85, S8692-93
Thune (for Murkowski/Schatz) Amendment No. 3971, to include a provision relating to investment earnings.
Pages S8692-93
Miccosukee Reserved Area Amendments Act
Senate passed H.R. 504, to amend the Miccosukee Reserved Area Act to authorize the expansion of the Miccosukee Reserved Area and to carry out activities to protect structures within the Osceola Camp from flooding.
Pages S8684-85, S8693
Porcupine Act
Senate passed S. 1744, to amend the Arms Export Control Act to include Taiwan among the list of recipient countries with respect to which shorter certification and reporting periods apply and to expedite licensing for allies transferring military equipment to Taiwan, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S8684-85, S8693
Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act
Senate passed S. 766, to require an annual report of taxpayer-funded projects that are over budget and behind schedule.
Pages S8684-85, S8693-94
Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act
Committee on Finance was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1491, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the postponement of certain deadlines by reason of disasters applicable to the limitation on credit or refund, and to take postponements into account for purposes of sending collection notices, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S8684-85, S8694-96
Arca Act of 2025
Senate passed S. 1591, to amend title 38, United States Code, to reorganize the acquisition structure of the Department of Veterans Affairs and to establish the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation in the Department, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S8694-96
Ensuring VetSuccess on Campus Act
Senate passed S. 610, to expand the VetSuccess on Campus program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Pages S8684-85, S8696
National Wreaths Across America Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 544, designating December 13, 2025, as ``National Wreaths Across America Day''.
Pages S8696-97
National Miners Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 545, designating December 6, 2025, as ``National Miners Day''.
Pages S8696-97
Measures Considered
Health Savings Account Contribution: Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of S.3386, to provide a health savings account contribution to certain enrollees, to reduce health care costs.
Pages S8643-55
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 51 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 643), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the motion to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill.
Page S8654
Health Care Premium Tax Credit
By 51 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 644), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the motion to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 3385, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the enhancement of the health care premium tax credit.
Pages S8654-55
House Messages
National Defense Authorization Act--Agreement: Senate began consideration of the House message to accompany S. 1071, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disinter the remains of Fernando V. Cota from Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery, Texas, after taking action on the following motions and amendments proposed thereto:
Pages S8655-56
Pending
Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the bill.
Pages S8655-56
Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the bill, with Thune Amendment No. 3961 (to the House amendment to the bill), to change the enactment date.
Page S8656
Thune Amendment No. 3962 (to Amendment No. 3961), to change the enactment date.
Page S8656
Thune motion to refer the message of the House on the bill to the Committee on Armed Services, with instructions, Thune Amendment No. 3963, to change the enactment date.
Page S8656
Thune Amendment No. 3964 (the instructions (Amendment No. 3963) of the motion to refer), to change the enactment date.
Page S8656
Thune Amendment No. 3965 (to Amendment No. 3964), to change the enactment date.
Page S8656
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 75 yeas to 22 nays (Vote No. 646), Senate agreed to the motion to lay before the Senate House message to accompany the bill.
Page S8655
A motion was entered to close further debate on Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the bill, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of Thursday, December 11, 2025, a vote on cloture will occur at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, December 15, 2025.
Pages S8655-56
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that the filing deadline with respect to first-degree amendments to the bill be at 4 p.m., on Monday, December 15, 2025.
Page S8697
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, the motion to invoke cloture with respect to the motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill ripen at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, December 15, 2025.
Page S8697
Message from the President
Senate received the following messages from the President of the United States: Transmitting, pursuant to law, notice of the intent to designate the Republic of Peru as a Major Non-NATO Ally; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (PM-43)
Pages S8668-69
Transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the continuation of the national emergency that was originally declared in Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (PM-44)
Page S8669
Transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the continuation of the national emergency that was originally declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, with respect to global illicit drug trafficking; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (PM-45)
Page S8699
Isaacman Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Jared Isaacman, of Pennsylvania, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Page S8656
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to S. 1071, National Defense Authorization Act.
Page S8656
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S8656
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S8656
Weaver Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Douglas Weaver, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2026.
Page S8656
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the nomination of Jared Isaacman, of Pennsylvania, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Page S8656
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Page S8656
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S8656
Nominations En Bloc: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the following en bloc nominations, pursuant to S. Res. 532 (119th Congress): Henry Mack III, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor; James Percival, of Florida, to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security; Pedro Allende, of Florida, to be Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security; Michael Powers, of Virginia, to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense; Benjamin Kohlmann, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Navy; Amy Henninger, of Virginia, to be Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense; David Denton, Jr., of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Navy; Benjamin Hobbs, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Ronald Kurtz, of Georgia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Jonathan Burke, of Georgia, to be Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing, Department of the Treasury; Chris Pilkerton, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Investment Security; David Courcelle, of Louisiana, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana for the term of four years; Jeremiah Workman, of Ohio, to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training; Derek Theurer, of Virginia, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury; Jonathan Greenstein, of New York, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury; Crystal Carey, of New Jersey, to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board for the term of four years; Rosario Palmieri, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor; James Murphy, of Maryland, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board for the term of five years expiring December 16, 2027; Kirsten Davies, of Tennessee, to be Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense; Derrick Anderson, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; James Mazol, of Virginia, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense; Braden Boucek, of Tennessee, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee for the term of four years; Dominick Gerace II, of Ohio, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio for the term of four years; Jerome Francis Gorgon, Jr., of Michigan, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan for the term of four years; Bryan Stirling, of South Carolina, to be United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina for the term of four years; Thomas Wheeler II, of Indiana, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana for the term of four years; Thomas Albus, of Missouri, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri for the term of four years; Adam Mildred, of Indiana, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana for the term of four years; Harry Kumar, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Commerce; Joyce Meyer, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs; Andrew Veprek, of Louisiana, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Population, Refugees, and Migration); John Bartrum, of Indiana, to be Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs; William Kirk, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, Small Business Administration; Jeffrey Hall, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Mitch Graves, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term expiring May 18, 2029; Jeff Hagood, of Tennessee, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term of expiring May 18, 2029; Randall Jones, of Alabama, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for a term expiring May 18, 2028; Arthur Graham, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority for the remainder of the term expiring May 18, 2026; Douglas Troutman, of Maryland, to be Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances of the Environmental Protection Agency; Anthony D'Esposito, of New York, to be Inspector General, Department of Labor; Platte Moring, of South Carolina, to be Inspector General, Department of Defense; Mindy Brashears, of Texas, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety; Stella Herrell, of New Mexico, to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture; Peter Metzger, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of the Treasury; Charles Arrington, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority for a term expiring July 1, 2030; Edward Forst, of Florida, to be Administrator of General Services; Stephen F. Rickard, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years; Elana S. Suttenberg, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years; John Cuong Truong, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years; Thomas Ferguson III, of North Carolina, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina for the term of four years; Robert Kadlec, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; Marc Berkowitz, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; Joseph Jewell, of Indiana, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; Brendan Rogers, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Navy; David Beck, of Tennessee, to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration; Charles Young III, of West Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Army; Michael Borders, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force; William Lane III, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force; John Noh, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; James Caggy, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense (New Position); Timothy Dill, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; Michael Payne, of Virginia, to be Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Department of Defense; Maurice Todd, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; Ethan Klein, of New Jersey, to be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; Stephen Carmel, of Virginia, to be Administrator of the Maritime Administration; Timothy Petty, of Indiana, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere; Laura DiBella, of Florida, to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner for a term expiring June 30, 2028; Trent Morse, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for a term expiring May 30, 2030; Michelle A. Schultz, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Surface Transportation Board for a term expiring November 30, 2030 (Reappointment); Paul Hollis, of Louisiana, to be Director of the Mint for a term of five years; Francis Cassidy, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Joseph Gormley, of Maryland, to be President, Government National Mortgage Association; Travis Hill, of Maryland, to be Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for a term of five years; Jeffrey Goettman, of Virginia, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative (Africa, Western Hemisphere, Europe, the Middle East, Environment, Labor, and Industrial Competitiveness), with the Rank of Ambassador; Arjun Mody, of New Jersey, to be Deputy Commissioner Social Security for the term expiring January 19, 2031; Julie Callahan, of the District of Columbia, to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative, with the rank of Ambassador; Leo Brent Bozell III, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of South Africa; Benjamin Leon, Jr., of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Spain, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Principality of Andorra; Brent Christensen, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador to the People's Republic of Bangladesh; Morvared Namdarkhan, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Consular Affairs); Thomas Bell, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services; John Walk, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, Department of Agriculture; Andrew Duva, of Florida, to be an Assistant Attorney General; Erin Creegan, of New Hampshire, to be United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire for the term of four years; Ryan Anthony Kriegshauser, of Kansas, to be United States Attorney for the District of Kansas for the term of four years; James Kruger, of Mississippi, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi for the term of four years; Scott Leary, of Mississippi, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi for the term of four years; Michael Selig, of Florida, to be Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Michael Selig, of Florida, to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for a term expiring April 13, 2029; Melissa Argyros, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Latvia; Yehuda Kaploun, of Florida, to be Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, with the rank of Ambassador; Bernardo Navarro, of Puerto Rico, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Peru; Darryl Nirenberg, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Romania; Tammy Bruce, of California, to be the Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador; the Deputy Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations; and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during her tenure of service as Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations; Christopher Yeaw, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Stability); Mary Anne Carter, of Tennessee, to be Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts for a term of four years; Scott Mayer, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board for the term of five years expiring December 16, 2029;
Pages S8657-65
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nominations en bloc, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and the provisions of S. Res. 532 (119th Congress), a vote on cloture will occur upon disposition of the nomination of Douglas Weaver, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2026
Page S8657
Prior to the consideration of these nominations en bloc, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Legislative Session.
Pages S8656-57
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the en bloc nominations, listed in S. Res. 532.
Page S8657
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S8672-77
Record Votes
Four record votes were taken today. (Total--646)
Pages S8654-55
Adjournment
Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 4:37 p.m., until 3 p.m. on Monday, December 15, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Majority Leader in today's Record on page S8697.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 76 of 177 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3386, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, former Governor Branstad is being honored today. Before I read that tribute about his honoring today, I thought I would give a little bit of background about what I know about former Governor Branstad.
I first met State Representative Terry Branstad in January 1973, when he was a new member of the legislature. He would tell you that I actually spoke to a group of Republicans who were at the University of Iowa in 1966. I will take his word for that.
He served 6 years in the State legislature. Then, we used to elect our Lieutenant Governor separate from the Governor, and he served 4 years as Lieutenant Governor. Then he was elected Governor of Iowa in 1982 and served 16 years, until 1998.
Then he decided to have a private life and a business life, and during those 12 years that he was not Governor, we had 12 years of Democratic Governors. They left a big fiscal hole. There was a real feeling among Iowans that only former Governor Branstad, then, could get us back on a strong fiscal path to fiscal sanity in Iowa.
So he decided to run for Governor again, and he selected now-Governor Reynolds as his running mate. And Terry Branstad served until the Trump administration, when he was appointed Ambassador to China.
The second Branstad administration, continued by Governor Reynolds, has had Iowa on a strong fiscal path, not with any deficits, and reducing taxes, having balanced budgets, and having several billions of dollars in reserve funds.
So now I would like to, with that background, talk about the honor that he is getting today.
It is an honor for me, today, to congratulate my good friend Terry Branstad. This very day, he will become the 26th recipient of what is called the Iowa Award, our home State's highest citizen award.
Governor Branstad is the longest serving Governor in U.S. history, who also served Americans as U.S. Ambassador to China during the first Trump administration.
Like me, Terry grew up on a family farm. Throughout his lifetime of public service, Terry applied the bone-deep work ethic of an Iowa farmer, with extra elbow grease, fiscal conservatism, and rock-solid tenacity. He is famous for his retail politicking and his political skill.
I am proud to say that Terry has been a supporter of mine in every one of my congressional campaigns, dating back to 1974.
He joins an esteemed group of Iowans--examples like President Herbert Hoover to Norman Borlaug and Grant Wood--who have helped make our State the best place to call home.
Barbara and I congratulate Governor Branstad on his well-deserved award and thank him for his friendship and decades of service.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum calls with respect to Calendar No. 285, S. 3386; and Calendar No. 284, S. 3385.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARASSO. Mr. President, $83 billion--that is how much Democrats
Look, I am a doctor--as are you, Mr. President. We want patients to get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. ObamaCare robbed the American people of choice, as well as affordability.
So the Democrats are back here, today, saying they want to send an additional $83 billion directly from the Treasury of the United States to the pockets of the health insurance companies of America.
Mr. President, ObamaCare has failed so badly that Democrats continue to use taxpayer dollars to try to hide the failures. That is what this whole Biden COVID bonus scam is all about. These are juicy subsidies-- extra subsidies on top of the regular ObamaCare subsidies--and they are the ones that are expiring at the end of this month.
You may recall that, in 2021, the Biden COVID bonuses were rushed through by Democrats, and they called them temporary emergency measures because of COVID. They created these Biden COVID bonus payments without a single Republican vote.
So why did they create it? It is because ObamaCare is unaffordable. People all across the country understand that. Democrats have known it from the beginning; they just refuse to admit it.
In 2022, they extended the Biden COVID bonuses--again, without a single Republican vote. Now, the tax-and-spend radicals who run the Democrat party want to extend them again--these bonus payments--for an additional 3 years. Oh, and they want to do it with zero reforms.
This is a program that is chock-full of waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption; and they do nothing to help try to make healthcare affordable for the families of America.
So the choice today is simple. Do we want to send more taxpayer dollars as welfare to insurance companies? Or do we want to make healthcare more affordable for patients and put patients in control?
So let's start with the Democrat bill. The Democrat bill forces Americans to pay $6,000 out of pocket before insurance even kicks in. That is called the deductible. It continues the same failed ObamaCare policies that raise premiums for American families by over 220 percent since ObamaCare became law--no reforms.
Well, remember, wasn't it President Obama who said to the Nation: Oh, if you pass my plan, premiums will go down by $2,500 per year per family. They didn't. They doubled. I think they called that one ``the lie of the year'' of ObamaCare. Democrats refused to include any of the needed reforms to deal with the significant flaws and fraud of ObamaCare.
This month, the government investigators at the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, uncovered $21 billion being sent in 1 year alone--in 2023, $21 billion sent to insurance companies--for policies where there was no verification of the person's income, no verification of their citizenship, no verification, in many cases, of the person's actual existence. It is hard to believe, but true. Opinion pieces have been written, even by the Washington Post, that talked about the level of fraud.
There are 20 million people on ObamaCare right now. You talk about $21 billion and with the 20 million divided out. It is about $1,000 worth of potential fraud for each and every enrollee in ObamaCare.
What do Democrats want? They want to continue this unchecked for the next 3 years--no changes, no reforms, nothing. Worst of all, Democrats want to send tens of billions of dollars every year directly from the government, directly into the bank accounts of the insurance companies.
How do insurance companies feel about this? Hey, they are licking their lips for $83 billion more, because for insurance companies, their stock prices have gone up between 500 and 1,000 percent since ObamaCare became law. It seems like Democrats are interested in making them even richer.
What they are proposing isn't a serious plan; it is a disaster. Our Nation can't afford it, and the American people can't afford to pay these high costs for healthcare.
We need to focus on the cost of care and how we as doctors can lower that cost of care for American families. So we have a better approach. It is a simple approach.
We start with a simple principle, and that principle is that healthcare should work for patients, not for big insurance companies. Our plan sends money that is now going to insurance companies and sends it directly into the pocketbooks and into the pockets of the hard- working families of America. That is where the money belongs. It does that by expanding health savings accounts, not direct payments to insurance companies for more ObamaCare.
Our plan reduces the payments to insurance companies by $30 billion, and it will lower healthcare premiums by 11 percent. Our plan puts patients in charge. They would be in the driver's seat. That is who needs to be in the driver's seat, with real freedom to get the healthcare that works best for them and their families.
Our plan restricts Federal Medicaid funding to States that give health insurance to illegal immigrants.
People say: Oh, you can't be giving it to illegal immigrants. It is illegal to give it to illegal immigrants.
It doesn't mean States aren't doing it. And the GAO study found that the ObamaCare plans are also and have been used by illegal immigrants.
It requires States to verify citizenship prior to signing someone up for Medicaid, as well as for ObamaCare. And our plan upholds Hyde amendment protections--protecting Americans' rights of conscience.
Our plan is fully paid for. It is an end to the Democrat era of runaway spending to cover up ObamaCare's high prices.
I am a doctor. I practiced medicine for 24 years in Wyoming. And I can tell you this: When patients have more freedom and more choices, healthcare improves. When patients have more freedom and more choices, costs go down. That is what Republicans are voting for today.
I really want to thank Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho and Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana for leading this effort. I want to thank the Presiding Officer for his efforts to find reforms that will actually work, that will help patients, will help lower the costs, put them in charge. That is what we really need to do--lower healthcare costs for hard-working families.
So the contrast is clear. Today, Democrats are going to vote to protect a broken system of higher costs, of rampant fraud, and big checks to insurance companies. Republicans are going to vote for a plan that lowers healthcare prices and empowers patients. It empowers them to choose the doctor and the care that works best for them. That is what Republicans are committed to.
We are committed to delivering what the American people deserve, which is the care they need from a doctor they choose at a cost they can afford.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, today is D-day--decision day for Republican Senators. Will Republicans side today with the American people and avert the impending healthcare crisis or will they abandon American families as premiums shoot through the roof on January 1? That is the decision Senate Republicans must make today.
I say to my Republican colleagues: Our bill is the last train to leave the station.
After wasting precious time fighting among themselves, Republicans have one last shot at a clean, realistic plan to lower healthcare premiums. The Democratic bill is the only bill that will do that today. Ours is the only bill on either side in the House and Senate that has the full support of every Member on our side of the aisle.
Democrats are fighting to lower healthcare costs for the American people, while Republicans are fighting among themselves. By my last count, Republicans are now at nine different healthcare proposals and counting, and
So I repeat, our bill is the last train to leave the station. After this, we will not have time to try again before premiums shoot through the roof next year. This is not a political fight. This is not a symbolic vote. This is a life-and-death vote because people who will lose their healthcare could face that horrible, horrible end.
This is about ensuring that working- and middle-class people can afford to see a doctor without going broke, to afford treatment for illnesses like cancer and enjoy the dignity of good health without wiping out their life savings.
For many Americans, affording health insurance is the difference between life and death, as I have said, so we must act. People are counting on us. The American people are counting on us--counting on you, Republican Senators--to act.
Now, of course, this morning, the Senate will first vote on the Republican healthcare proposal, but the Republican plan is nothing more than a reflection of the deep divisions inside the Republican caucus and the Republican Party.
Republicans have had so many differences amongst themselves that for a while, it looked like they weren't going to put up a bill at all. But after that became too embarrassing an option for Republicans, they used Scotch tape and glue to come up with this ridiculous proposal that can't be taken seriously and does nothing--nothing--to avoid the impending healthcare crisis. It doesn't extend the ACA tax credits for a day, month, a year--none of that. Not even a day.
Even calling this Republican bill a proposal is generous because the Republican bill is little more than junk insurance. It is no real plan at all. It has been repudiated time and time again in the past and will be repudiated by the American people again.
Under the Republican plan, the big idea is essentially to hand people about $80 a month and wish them good luck. And even to qualify for that check--listen to how bad this is--Americans would be forced onto bare- bones bronze plans with sky-high deductibles--$7,000 or $10,000 for an individual, tens of thousands for a couple. So to get that $80 a month, you are going to pay $7,000 off the top before you even get any health insurance. How ridiculous, how stingy, and how mean and cruel to the American people. What Republicans offer is not a healthcare plan. The Republican plan is a ``When you get sick, you go broke'' plan.
You know, it is sad that the Senate even got to this place to begin with. Republicans in the Senate should have solved this problem months ago. Democrats warned this crisis was coming. We gave Republicans more than three chances to extend the tax credits this year--in the spring, the summer, and the fall--and every time, Republicans said no.
Instead of lowering premiums, Republicans chose instead to ax healthcare funding, kick millions off insurance, close rural hospitals, all the while ripping away nutrition funding for working people. Why? So they could give their billionaire buddies a tax break. And now, after so much delay, Republicans are about to let the clock hit midnight.
So there is only one option left to avoid falling over this healthcare cliff that Republicans have brought us to--a clean, simple, direct extension of the current ACA credits. Every single Democrat is unified behind this proposal. I urge Republicans to drop their divisions and join us.
Republicans, join us, and let's avert a disaster. Join us, and let's lower costs for the American people. We have one shot to get this right. Republicans, join us.
The American people are watching how Republicans vote today.
Mr. President, on the nomination package, today, Senate Republicans will move forward with a package of 97 nominees that includes some of the most horribly unqualified, shockingly radical nominees Donald Trump has appointed to date.
Historically, when a President nominates such terrible people to positions of power, the Senate has stood as a check on the Executive no matter which President, Democrat or Republican, was in charge, but not this Senate majority, not this Republican Party. Senate Republicans continue to bend the knee to Donald Trump and give him practically any nominee he wants no matter how awful they are. They support these nominees no matter how unqualified they are, no matter how partisan they are, no matter how unethical they are--no questions asked.
That is why people like Paul Hollis--to be the Director of the Mint at the Department of the Treasury--are in the package. If confirmed, Mr. Hollis's first act would be to rubberstamp the Trump one-dollar coin. That is why they pick somebody--because Trump wants a one-dollar coin with his face on it, I think. And he refused to share details on how he would increase efficiency at the Mint because he doesn't have a plan. He probably doesn't even know much about it.
It is why people like Charles Arrington to be a member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority are in this package. Unlike nearly all former FLRA members, Arrington is not a lawyer. And he has a history of engaging in bad-faith bargaining while at the VA.
The Senate should be considering each of these nominees one by one, with time to debate each nominee on the floor in front of the American people and with a rollcall vote on each nominee so every single Senator is on record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak for 5 minutes each prior to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 3386: Senator Shaheen, Senator Ossoff, Senator Wyden, Senator Durbin, Senator Hassan, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, later today, we will vote on the Democrats' partisan messaging bill, which is a clean, 3-year extension of the Biden COVID bonuses. And when I say ``clean,'' all that I mean by that are no reforms, straight-up extension--3 years of a program without any reforms, any revisions, any changes that would actually help drive down healthcare costs instead of increasing healthcare costs and get rid of the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in this program.
The Democrats' plan--that the Democrat leader called it on the floor the other day. It is their ``plan.'' Apparently, they think that a 3- year extension with no reforms to try and disguise the real impact of ObamaCare's spiraling costs is actually a plan. I don't know how you can call it a plan.
I came down here yesterday to talk at length about some of the many problems with ObamaCare and the perverse incentives it provides to move employees off of employer-provided insurance and into taxpayer- subsidized plans that have rampant year-over-year increases in premiums; the perverse incentives it provides to insurance companies to enroll Americans--some of whom don't even know that they have been enrolled--so that the insurance companies can rake in even more subsidies.
And then this so-called plan is rampant--and I say ``rampant''--with fraud and abuse. A Government Accountability Office report released just last week found a whole host of problems, including the successful enrollment of fake individuals, Social Security number fraud, failure to verify or sometimes even request documentation, improper payment of subsidies, and the list goes on.
I want you to take a look at this. This is the finding that came out of that study that was done by the Government Accountability Office. This was their conclusion:
Ninety percent--not 10 percent, not 5 percent. I mean, if you had a program that had 10 percent fraud in it, I think that would be a huge red flag, right? Wouldn't you be alarmed by that? I
This program that we are talking about today, that they want to do a straight-up extension on--no reforms, no revisions--was found by the Government Accountability Office--an entity and Agency the Democrats love and support found that 90 percent of the accounts that were set up in the ObamaCare exchanges were fake--fake. Think about that. You can't make this stuff up. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse on a yearly basis. They don't want to do anything about it. They just want a straight-up extension on a program that the Government Accountability Office says has a 90-percent fraud rate.
That is obviously a huge problem, but I haven't even gotten to the central problem. That is that ObamaCare has utterly failed to control healthcare costs.
Since 2013, ObamaCare enrollees have seen a 221-percent increase in premiums.
Let me just repeat that. Since 2013, ObamaCare enrollees have seen a 221-percent increase in premiums--221 percent. That means ObamaCare premiums have grown at approximately five times the rate of inflation-- so much for making healthcare more affordable.
This graph, I think, illustrates that. Actually, this understates the problem because this shows that since 2014--in the first year of its inception, when the Obama exchanges went live, there was a huge increase that the insurance companies built into their premium costs to cover all the things they had to cover in the new program.
So since 2013, that number is 221 percent, but even since 2014, when the exchanges were fully up and operating, it has had a 129-percent increase in premiums at the same time that the group market--in other words, the large- and small-group market where a lot of people get their insurance coverage through their employer--was going up at about half that rate; 68 percent in the small- and large-group market, which is about where 150 million people get their insurance.
Frankly, the more people we could push into that market, it would not only lower their costs, but it also spreads the risk among a bigger pool. That, ultimately, is the way, in the long term, you want to spread your costs.
But what ObamaCare does, because it uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize and pay insurance companies directly--premiums go directly to the insurance companies, so insurance companies are making bank. They are getting enriched by this. But what it does at the same time is there is no incentive to control costs, and it is pushing people into that market.
If you are an employer or employee, for that matter--because most people respond to incentives--and you are told that you can get into a market where the taxpayers are going to cover it, the employer is going to say: Well, why should I pay for health insurance coverage for my employees if I can have the taxpayers pay for it?
So it is pushing more and more people out of the group market, this market right here, where there is a 68-percent increase--still way too much--over the last decade, pushing more and more people out of that market into this market, which has double the rate of increase in premiums. That doesn't include, as I said, the first year of its inception. If you add that first year back in there, that number is 221 percent.
So you have this system that is pushing more and more people into insurance coverage where the rates are skyrocketing, where the payments are going directly to the insurance companies, and where lower income taxpayers are subsidizing higher income taxpayers because there are no income levels.
So now you can have people making $500,000, $600,000 a year who are getting subsidized by the Federal taxpayer--people making $40,000 or $50,000 a year--at a cost to the Federal taxpayer, in their bill alone, which is just a 3-year extension, of $83 billion. You tell me in what universe that makes sense.
That is astonishing, to have a program where 90 percent of the people who are fraudulently enrolled got approved; a program where the rate of increase is twice the rate in the group market and three times the rate of inflation, the Consumer Price Index, over the same time period. Insurance companies are getting rich. Lower income taxpayers are footing the bill so more affluent Americans can have coverage. The American taxpayer is paying $83 billion just for the 3-year extension-- waste, fraud, and abuse, higher rates, fiscally irresponsible, and the list goes on.
Mr. President, even Democrats have to be well aware of the fact that ObamaCare has utterly failed to do what it promised. As I mentioned yesterday, we had one Democrat Senator come down to the floor during the shutdown, and, to his credit, he admitted the truth.
This is what he said:
That is a direct quote: ``We did fail to bring down the cost of healthcare.''
So what are Democrats proposing to do about that failure? As I said, exactly nothing. Democrats' so-called plan is a 3-year extension of the status quo--no reforms, no revisions, no rethinking of the way that ObamaCare works; just a 3-year extension of the status quo which, I might add, was put in place in response to the pandemic. When they extended these subsidies back in 2022, it was in August. The pandemic was long over--long over.
As I said, you can't make this stuff up.
So it is not going to do anything to address the perverse incentive to push Americans out of the employer-sponsored healthcare system and onto taxpayer-subsidized plans. It is not going to do anything to address the perverse incentives that encourage insurance companies to enrich themselves at the taxpayers' expense and do nothing to address the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in ObamaCare. Most of all, it will do nothing to bring down healthcare costs. Nothing. Zero.
Under Democrats' plan, insurance premiums will continue to spiral. American taxpayers will find themselves on the hook for ever-increasing subsidy payments. And don't think all those payments are going to be going to vulnerable Americans. As I said, the Democrats' decision to remove any income cap on the Biden COVID bonuses has Americans making as much as half a million dollars or more qualifying for taxpayer subsidies--half a million dollars. Do Democrats really think middle-class families should subsidize healthcare premiums for those making half a million dollars?
Democrats don't have a healthcare plan. They want to extend the status quo--a failed, flawed, fraud program that is increasing costs three times the rate of inflation.
On the other hand, Republicans today will offer something that does actually lower costs. Earlier this week, we introduced legislation-- drafted by the chairmen of the relevant committees, Senators Crapo and Cassidy--to make structural reforms to the individual health insurance market.
In contrast to the Democratic bill, our bill would actually lower, as I said, ObamaCare premium costs, and it would redirect government savings from the bill into health savings accounts for eligible ObamaCare enrollees earning less than 700 percent of the Federal poverty level, paired with more affordable insurance plans.
These accounts would help individuals to meet their out-of-pocket costs, and for many individuals who don't use their insurance or who barely use it, it would allow them to save for healthcare expenses down the road.
We have two paths here--one, a plan to start addressing the spiraling healthcare costs in ObamaCare and make structural reforms that would drive down premium prices; two, a proposal for a 3-year extension of the status quo. So you tell me who is serious about actually addressing the affordability of healthcare.
Democrats may talk about helping Americans, but their bill is nothing more than a political messaging exercise that they hope they can use against Republicans next November. So I hope that after today, they will feel like they have checked the messaging box and will get serious about actually doing something about the spiraling healthcare costs under ObamaCare.
Republicans are ready to get to work. I am not sure yet the Democrats are interested.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, before I begin my official remarks to address the vote that we are going to be having shortly, I just want to respond to the majority leader's remarks because I think there was some misinformation there.
The fact is that 92 percent of people who get those enhanced premium tax credits are making $200,000 or less, and the average income for a person who receives those premium tax credits is $32,000 a year. That is not somebody in a higher income bracket. In fact, about 50 percent of the people who receive premium tax credits are small business owners or their employees, who have no other option for healthcare because they can't afford employer-sponsored health insurance.
I think much of what the majority leader said about costs and about addressing fraud and about lowering the cost of healthcare are things that we all ought to support. I am ready to come to the table.
I think we would be better served if, after we get through these votes, we sit down and come to a compromise to address the real costs that people are facing in terms of healthcare, and I am ready to do that.
But in a few moments, we are going to vote on whether millions of Americans can keep the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits or whether they will face a crushing financial blow. These credits have helped millions of families, including tens of thousands of people in New Hampshire, keep their coverage and balance their family budgets. For many, they are the only thing that is standing between stability and a crisis.
I have worked on these tax credits since 2019 when I first introduced the bill. I have warned for more than a year about what would happen to rates if we failed to address this issue in Congress. Well, now that open enrollment has begun, we are seeing the consequences of that failure to act in real time.
States and insurers are reporting that significantly fewer people are reenrolling in health insurance plans because families simply cannot afford the rising premiums. The Republican proposal that Senators Cassidy and Crapo are introducing doesn't really address that issue.
Even those who are reenrolling are often being pushed into less comprehensive plans that leave them exposed to substantial out-of- pocket costs.
Yesterday, at a forum that I cohosted with Senator Warner, we heard directly from people who depend on this coverage. Their stories were personal, and they were urgent.
One small business owner who is also a healthcare provider told us that affordable ACA coverage allows her to keep serving new mothers in her community while still caring for her own family. But she also pointed out that if we don't address these premium tax credits, the cost of her health insurance was going to quadruple.
Another woman from Concord, NH, described the moment her son, who lives with a serious mental illness, had his coverage approved. She said she wept with relief. With that coverage, he has been able to work, to live independently, and to get the treatment he needs.
These are real families who have real stakes in this debate that we are having. This is not a game, and people are already feeling the impact of inaction.
Democrats have put forward a straightforward, immediate solution to prevent the premiums from jumping and to keep people insured. Some of my Republican colleagues have offered ideas that they believe could help. I think that engagement has been constructive, but the time is short. We need to act now, and we need to extend the tax credits.
I know there are Members in both parties who want to find a responsible path forward. I welcome the discussion on where we can find common ground, and I am ready to come to the table, as I said, with any of my colleagues, to work on long-term reforms.
First, we must keep millions of Americans from losing coverage in the coming months. Extending these credits is the easiest and most direct way to protect families.
Mr. President, what is an American supposed to do who loses health insurance in the middle of chemotherapy?
That is the question confronting one of my constituents right now, a Georgian who wrote in to my office. She is a woman in her early sixties, who is in the middle of a breast cancer fight. She waits tables for a living.
If Republicans allow these Affordable Care Act benefits to expire, her premiums will go up by hundreds of dollars, and she says she will have to cancel her health coverage. She needs chemo monthly to fight her cancer. What is she supposed to do?
Or there is my constituent with diabetes, who just had major surgery for another health issue, just a few months ago, and told me that, when she learned that this Congress might let these tax credits expire, she cried. She cried not for herself; she cried because she feared that others would die as a result of this policy choice.
Then she got her own insurance quote for next year: hundreds of dollars higher than she is paying now. She is a diabetic, in Georgia, who just had major surgery, who says she, too, will have to cancel her health insurance. She cried again when she got that insurance quote because, suddenly, she feared that she might die--she might die.
What is she supposed to do?
Another constituent who reached out to my office this week is a single mother who relies on medicine that, if she is not insured, will cost her $80,000 per year without insurance. Her premiums are about to go up by hundreds of dollars. She, too, says she probably will have to cancel her insurance. What is she supposed to do? How is she going to afford medicine that costs, without insurance, $80,000 per year?
The whole conversation about these Affordable Care Act tax credits in this town, in this building, has been focused on the politics of this issue. This is life or death. People will die.
This is one of the most consequential votes this Senate will take all year. By saying yea or nay to the clerk of the Senate later today, Senators will decide whether people live or people die. Senators will decide whether Georgians and folks across the country are financially ruined or have a shot.
Half a million Georgians, it is projected, will lose their coverage altogether. More than a million more will see their premiums double or worse. This is a choice. What is the point of having all of this power if you won't use it to help people?
I remember, just a few weeks ago, Members of this body wrote into a funding bill half-million-dollar payments to themselves.
Do you remember that?
But our own constituents who stand to lose their health insurance in the middle of a cancer fight--what are they supposed to do?
My constituents cannot afford this, and some of my constituents cannot survive it.
I urge my Republican colleagues to put the politics aside and vote to extend these tax credits for the health of our constituents.
Mr. President, there is a runaway train barreling toward our country in the form of a massive increase in healthcare costs for millions of Americans who are tied to the tracks.
Today, the Senate will vote on two different plans: One, offered by Democrats, would save Americans from the health cost freight train and get them off the tracks. The other, offered by Republicans, amounts to tossing Americans a hacksaw and wishing them luck as the train speeds into view.
Come January 1, millions of Americans are going to have to figure out how they are going to pay for their healthcare. Families will be making a near-torturous decision between paying their premiums or paying for rent and groceries. Millions will decide to forgo coverage completely.
The Republican plan on offer is snake oil in a gaping wound. It is going to spark an avalanche of junk insurance plans designed to enrich big insurance
The biggest winner under this Republican scheme won't be Bartley and Carla of Eugene, OR, whose premiums will skyrocket by 500 percent on January 1. The real winner under the Republican proposal will be Big Insurance--specifically, the biggest, UnitedHealth Group. But enriching rich donors and giant corporations while typical Americans foot the bill is pretty much par for the course under a failed Republican leadership.
What Democrats are offering today is a clean extension of the tax credits to keep ACA plans in place.
Every Member of this body can agree that healthcare costs and insurance companies are spinning out of control and that more needs to be done to rein them in, but the solution is not to kick millions of people off their healthcare until Republicans get their act together to find a replacement.
I am now going to take a brief moment to talk about the off-base Republican claims about fraud in the individual market.
The fact is, Republicans are cherry-picking statistics or are outright distorting the facts to justify kicking millions of people off their healthcare under the guise of fighting fraud. Independent Federal watchdogs recently posed as sleazy insurance brokers to fraudulently enroll Americans in healthcare plans. That tells me that what is needed is tough criminal penalties aimed at stopping these unscrupulous insurance brokers.
I wrote that legislation--legislation that would, for the first time, hit the sleazy insurance brokers with criminal penalties.
Based on how much my Republican colleagues talk about fraud, you would think they would be tripping over themselves to support our bill, but none of them are doing so. That tells me that their rhetoric is just empty talk.
I will close with this: The only timely solution that saves Americans who are now in harm's way is by extending these credits and keeping costs down for families. Once the crisis is averted, let's look in a bold, new direction for American healthcare because it is clear the status quo doesn't work.
I urge my colleagues to support a clean extension of the ACA tax credits to provide American families the money they need to pay for high-quality healthcare.
Mr. President, my grandma taught me so many things and had so many great, old sayings.
One of the things she taught me is that, if you have your health, you have everything. If you have your health, you have everything. I think that is one of the reasons I wanted to become a doctor. I wanted to help give people their health.
But healthcare is in a crisis right now. Healthcare is in a crisis. Doctors think healthcare is in a crisis. Nurses think healthcare is in a crisis. Patients, families, Americans--we all think that healthcare is in a crisis.
The Democrats' solution is, frankly, just to throw more money at the problem--to throw more money at the problem--which really inflates everybody else's costs of healthcare.
What our party would like to do is to empower patients, not insurance companies. We want to put patients in charge, not insurance companies.
Before we, you know, dive a little deeper into our bill that we are asking unanimous consent for today, I want to answer, I think, one of the toughest questions I have been asked. The question is--you know, when I go back home, in January, families are going to look to me and say: Why couldn't you fix healthcare?
I want the record to show right now that the Democrats are walking away from a yearlong extension on the enhanced subsidies. They are walking away. We are offering it. I don't think the subsidies are a good idea--I never did--but my heart says it is the right thing to do. So let the record show, if the Democrats object to this bill, they are walking away from a yearlong extension of ObamaCare in exchange for empowering patients.
You know, this crisis--I think we need to understand a little bit more where this crisis came from. ObamaCare has been the law of the land now for 15 years. And perhaps Speaker Pelosi's most famous moment of her career is when she said we need to pass the bill so we can see what is in it.
Well, now we know what is in it. We know it was written by insurance companies. We are giving them $150 billion a year. It was written by PBMs. It was written by big hospital systems, big healthcare systems who have driven the spend on healthcare now to $5 trillion a year.
What have we ended up with? Of course, the costs are higher. No one can deny that the average premiums are now more than 200 percent higher than they were. Access is worse. Fraud is rampant. And really ObamaCare is junk insurance, right?
When they talked about what junk insurance was, they argued for ObamaCare. ObamaCare has turned into junk insurance. When families have a deductible of $15,000 a year, that is junk insurance, right? So we ended up doing just the opposite of what they stated their intended goals were. So listen--listen--to what the Democrats are saying now and what they are willing to do.
Let me just sum up, briefly, what our plan does, and then I will maybe go a little bit deeper. No. 1 is we address the fraud. No. 2, we extend the ObamaCare--the Biden-era extended subsidies for another year. We fund CSRs. We address fraud, if I didn't say that yet. And then starting in 2027, we would start taking some of that money that we were using on these extended subsidies--that is about $35 billion a year--we would start putting that into your debit card, into your healthcare debit card, thousands of dollars per family.
You know, for some it might be $7,000. For some, it might be $5,000, but we want you to start making choices. And then, lastly, what our bill does--and this is why I am so confused why Democrats are walking away from this. If there was one good thing about ObamaCare is it addressed preexisting conditions. And we will talk about that more in a second. But our bill funds invisible high-risk reinsurance pools.
So it is like belt and suspenders for people that develop high-risk conditions.
Let's dive into each of these pillars a little bit more. No. 1 is let's stop the fraud. No one can deny that there is significant fraud in ObamaCare. We don't know exactly how much. Is it $20 billion? Is it $30 billion?
We know that a third of people on ObamaCare never make a claim. A third of people on ObamaCare never make a claim.
And we know that--we saw the number--the fraud increased significantly when we allowed people to have zero dollars in the game. So what our bill does is, No. 1, it requires an ID--ID verification. It requires work verification. It requires income verification. And it requires you to contribute $5 a month.
If these were implemented, I really think we would save the country $25 billion a year. And again, that would more than fund this high-risk pool that I would like to do. I think stopping the fraud, there couldn't be anything more simple. But even just yesterday, the Democrats refused, and they voted down addressing the fraud.
Next, our pillar is real price transparency. If we adopted this, the cost of healthcare for everyone--whether you are on ObamaCare or get your money through your work or you are on Medicare--it would drive down the cost of healthcare for everybody by 20 percent.
Rather than spending $5 trillion a year, this country would be spending $4 trillion a year. Think of the great things--what else we could do if we had that money to do better things with. We could fund community health centers. So many great things we could do out there from a healthcare standpoint as well.
But by giving pricetags to patients--by forcing every healthcare provider, upfront, to have a list of everything that they offer and have that already on a website run by CMS and you are sitting there in your hometown and the doctor says you need to have your knee replaced and you could automatically
You are going to find some hospitals charge $10,000 for that hip replacement; others charge $60,000 for it; some $120,000 for it. Heck, you might even hop on a plane and fly from New York City to Kansas to save $120,000 on a hip replacement--and we will put you up in the best hotel in all of Kansas to do that.
Pricetags are what cures that. Pricetags turn patients into consumers. It lets patients become shoppers again. Over and over again on Black Friday, Americans demonstrate to me that they have strong purchasing power and know what they are wanting to do with those dollars.
So by empowering patients, by turning them into shoppers again, by forcing pricetags, this is going to lower the cost of healthcare for everybody by 20 percent.
Our third pillar is to bridge subsidies for families. Look, you don't have to convince me of the cliff people are facing. Because of ObamaCare, premiums are going to go up 20 to 30 percent regardless. Regardless of what we do here in Congress, premiums are going to go up 30 percent.
I want to help those people. Maybe, you know, the people most impacted by this cliff--there are probably 1 million of them, maybe there are 2 million of them as well. That is why we need to do more than this bill to impact them long term by allowing them to purchase healthcare across State lines and expand association healthcare plans.
But again, we are extending the subsidies for 1 year. No other deal up here, really, on the Republican side addresses that except for this particular deal. I know my friends want 3 years. Look, let's talk about it.
What would it take for you to actually consider driving the true cost of healthcare down and not just throw money at the problem?
I just can't emphasize enough. You are a family of four. You are making $80,000 a year, which is more than the average salary in Kansas, and have a $15,000 deductible. That is not access to healthcare.
You have to admit--and I think my Democrat friends do admit--that ObamaCare is broken.
Next, I want to just talk about our invisible State-run high-risk pool. Look, I talked a second about preexisting conditions. The one thing I was really excited about ObamaCare is that it took care of the preexisting conditions.
Guess what the most common preexisting condition is in America. It is pregnancy. I delivered a baby almost every day of my life for 25 years, and believe it or not, less than half of pregnancies are planned.
And when couples are purchasing--they get married, they purchase health insurance, and they were going to save a couple hundred bucks by not including pregnancy, they thought it was a good idea. But guess what. Mother Nature doesn't always cooperate. Again, half these pregnancies were not planned. So I was glad to see us address preexisting conditions.
But even now we know insurance companies do play games to try to keep you out once you have a tough diagnosis. But if those insurance companies knew that, based upon your diagnosis and the money you are spending, you are already going to this partially federally funded high-risk pool, it would keep everyone's premiums down.
My friends across the aisle talk about--you know, they tug at people's hearts, which I want to do as well. We don't want anyone to face bankruptcy because of healthcare. But that is happening now, right?
Admit it. Your plan is not working. All these many, many families are facing and have taken bankruptcy because of the cost of healthcare.
So we use this belt-and-suspenders approach. We have the preexisting conditions in ObamaCare. We keep those. But then we do something better by funding these high-risk pools as well.
You know, high-risk pools let us protect the sick without punishing the healthy. If these catastrophic costs are covered, premiums fall for everyone. That is just simple common sense.
If you think about these five pillars here that I want the Democrats to agree with, I bet we drive down the cost of healthcare by 40 to 50 percent.
You know, our last pillar is just this theme of turning patients into consumers by giving them pricetags, by putting Federal dollars in your debit account for healthcare, by giving you pricetags. We turn you into shoppers again. It is going to lower the cost for everybody, and then we start reallocating that waste from fraud and abuse.
What makes our plan different than anybody else's out there? We address the fraud. We have pricetags that no other plan has. It bridges the subsidies.
And instead, my Democrat friends are offering a $83 million fix. The Democrats are just compounding the junk insurance. With all due respect to my friends across the aisle, you are just throwing good money after bad money.
By extending these subsidies for 3 years, it will be at least $83 billion. And the way healthcare is accelerating, it will be $100 billion. Again, I do feel the pain of these folks. I mean, these are my friends, my neighbors.
A top-three issue for every family in America, for every business in America, is the cost of healthcare. How can you walk away from a plan that is going to drive the cost of healthcare down 40 to 50 percent? And instead, you just want to offer more junk insurance.
Your plan doesn't do anything to bring down the cost of the deductibles in the plan. That is the problem. You could pay for their whole premium--you are. We are paying for their whole premium. But then they have a $15,000 deductible. That is not access to healthcare.
I don't know why my friends across the aisle don't want to have meaningful discussions. Why do we not want to talk about fixing the problem? There is so much more than this that we should be talking about right now.
Again, pharmacy benefit manager reform comes to mind, expanding community health centers, making sure everybody has meaningful access to primary care, bringing mental health into those community health centers. Those are all real solutions: expanding association healthcare plans, letting it be purchased along State lines.
Could you imagine if Sam's Club or Costco or Amazon had an association health plan that you could sign up for? Think of the purchase power that they would have.
There are real solutions out there. These are real solutions. Democrats have asked for a plan. This is, frankly, just the start of a good plan, but it would help bridge us over the next year to go after these other issues we can address on a bipartisan basis.
And remember--I will just close with this. When patients ask their Senators in January why their health insurance premiums went up, and they are going to ask you: Why did you vote against Senator Marshall's plan that extended the subsidies for a year, I hope you have got a great answer for that.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3389 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I had the honor of serving with Senator Marshall in the House. We were classmates. We came in together in 2016. It is kind of ironic to think back to that time because as a freshman, I watched my colleagues try to repeal and replace and repeal and replace and repeal and replace.
Just last week, Senator Marshall and I introduced the PBM Disclosure Act together, a bill regarding PBM transparency. We worked on some important things, but at this moment I can think of nothing more important than addressing our Nation's healthcare crisis. Unfortunately, I cannot support what is being proposed here today.
Now, we all agree that our healthcare system needs improvement. The Democrats have put forward proposals to do just that. As a matter of fact, Senator Wyden, who is sitting on the floor right here, today, has put forward a proposal--a bill--that deals with the issue of fraud. And as he said, he would love his Republican colleagues to join him in that effort.
This bill claims to actually attack fraud. It also claims to fix the premium crisis. But, in reality, it would kick millions of Americans off their ACA healthcare coverage. Premiums would go up for over 10 million people by an average of $1,000. And to top it all off, this bill adds new abortion restrictions. It is yet another harmful proposal from Republicans, while the clock is ticking for the American people.
Almost a dozen proposals have been offered by Republicans in the Senate and the House, in just the last few weeks. That is tantamount to throwing spaghetti up on a wall to see what sticks.
For months, we have asked Republicans to come to the table. During the shutdown, they said they couldn't talk to us about healthcare. Yet they were still holding hearings on a whole host of things.
They spent 6 months before that, in the beginning of the year, passing tax cuts for billionaires. Apparently, that wasn't the time to talk to us either.
The very first bill I sponsored--I cosponsored--as a U.S. Senator, back in January, was the Healthcare Affordability Act, which would have permanently extended the ACA tax credits. Now, it is December, almost a year later.
As I already said, we have received almost a dozen plans from Republicans, and they are still coming in. As a matter of fact, I think one came in last night.
Let us help you help your constituents. Democrats are offering the cleanest, easiest, simplest way to deal with the immediate healthcare crisis, the immediate healthcare cliff that Americans are facing, and it gives us time to improve our healthcare system. It would even give us the chance to review the thousands of plans and concepts of plans that my colleagues are putting forward.
This bill is too little, too late. And for that reason, I respectfully object.
Mr. President, again, I greatly respect the words and have great respect for the Senator, my colleague and good friend from Delaware. And I know both of us share the same heart--that we want every American to have meaningful access to healthcare.
There are many things we agreed upon. The PBM Disclosure Act is but one example. Bringing down the cost of prescription drugs would be a huge priority for us as well. We both agree that fraud is a problem.
Take this bill and improve it. Is it too little? It probably is too little. But it is a start; it is a framework. You have the legislative text.
Look, I have become very pragmatic in my days in Washington. I can't change what happened in 2010, before I got here. I can't change all the histories of dealing with healthcare. I can't change the fact that we have 100 Senators with 100 ideas to fix ObamaCare. I have already said ObamaCare--tackling ObamaCare is like tackling a buffalo that just ran through a barbed-wire fence; and every time you try to pull a layer of that barbed wire off, you get poked with it. I understand that.
But this is a great framework. It is my effort at a bipartisan framework to get us started. And, again, offering the olive leaf of extending the Biden-era subsidies for another year, I think, is just the biggest olive branch I can make.
Again, come January, my Democrat friends are going to have to answer that question: Why did you walk away from Senator Marshall's plan to extend those subsidies for a year?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, what we are debating here are two visions of the future of the ObamaCare exchange. Democrats want to cover the cost of health insurance to benefit health insurance companies. And Republicans want to cover the cost of health insurance to benefit patients.
Now, I can actually kind of develop that idea. If you look at what insurance--what Democrats want to do, they want to give 100 percent of the money to the insurance companies. And the insurance company, by law, under ObamaCare, can take 20 percent of it for overhead and profit. Eighty percent of it goes to patient care, but, of course, you have got to get your prior authorization and permission for this 80 percent to be spent upon you.
On the other hand, the Republican plan is to put the money into the patient's pocketbook so that she has money to pay for the insurance out of pocket. And here, 100 percent of the money she receives goes toward some sort of healthcare or dental care or vision care. By the way, that is a distinction. Under the Democratic plan, the insurance company doesn't cover your dental work, they don't cover the orthodontia for your child, and they don't cover the eyeglasses you need. Under what we are doing, putting it into her pocketbook, for physicians, dentists, drugs, vision care--this is a patient-driven account, of which 100 percent is going to the care she knows she needs. And she does not need to seek permission in order to obtain it.
Now, to put a little bit of a point on it, a 50-year-old couple with children 19 and 20 could get as much as $5,000 in their account. Think about what that means for somebody with chronic disease. If you have diabetes, under the Democratic plan, there is a $6,000 deductible; and someone has to pay $6,000 before they begin to get coverage for everything they need for their chronic disease. Under the Republican plan, putting $5,000 for that couple I spoke of earlier, with two children, it is in their pocketbook. They can pay for that which they need for chronic disease. So what is not to like?
I would say that the Republican plan meets Americans where they are financially. Most Americans don't have more than $1,000 in their savings account.
Let me repeat that: Most Americans don't have $1,000 in their savings account.
The Democratic plan would require them to have a deductible and to pay $6,000 before the insurance kicks in.
So let's compare the two plans. The red side is the Democratic plan, and the green side is the Republican plan. The Democratic plan is to give 100 percent of the enhanced premium tax credits to insurance companies. The Republican plan is to give the money to the patient-- into her pocket, her pocketbook, her purse--to pay the out-of-pocket for the insurance plan.
What could it be used for? Under the Democratic plan, it subsidizes premiums. Under the Republican plan, the patient gets the care she knows she needs--the physician visit, the dental visit, the glasses, the prescriptions. And she doesn't need permission to do it. She does it because she knows she needs it.
Who makes the decision?
Anyone who has fought with an insurance company over prior authorization knows that the golden rule applies: The one who has the gold makes the rules. And the insurance company makes the rules as to what you can get. And by the way, that does not cover dental, orthodontic work, eyeglasses, and other things.
Here, the patient decides. The patient has the power. It is not profit to insurance companies; it is power to the patient. And if she needs eyeglasses, she uses this money that we put into her account to purchase them. If her child needs to go to the dentist for dental cleaning, she can do that.
Does it lower costs? Well, if you give the money to the insurance company, clearly, it does not, because since the ObamaCare law passed, costs have exploded. But studies show that if you give the patient the money in her pocketbook, she is going to shop for the best deal. She is going to say: Wait a second. The x ray costs $50 here and $500 there-- and the difference can be that much. I am going to go to the place where it is cheaper.
Now, as soon as everybody starts going to the place where it is less expensive, the place that is more expensive lowers its cost. That has been shown empirically to work.
The Republican plan gives the patient the power to shop, the power to take advantage of price competition; and that lowers costs.
One more thing, how does it work with low-cost bronze plans? Under the tax cuts for working families bill, Republicans passed a law saying that health savings accounts--this kind of putting money in the pocket--can work with a bronze plan. So, if you
Now, it has been said that somehow Republicans are supporting junk insurance. And you have got to laugh. Mr. President, you have got to laugh. Republicans are using the same plans on ObamaCare that Democrats fought for. We are merely taking the framework, set up on a unanimous partisan vote by Democrats, to create these plans on ObamaCare, and that is the one we are using. So for some to call those junk plans, it is kind of like saying: We gave the American people junk.
I would argue that the Republican Party is making these better.
Look at this. Under the Democratic plan, there is a $6,000 deductible. Imagine the housewife who has to take her child to the urgent care center and knows she doesn't have the money.
This is a cartoon, but in that cartoon, there is real stress and anxiety for that mama who cannot afford the care she knows her daughter needs.
Look at this one, the Republican plan. She has got money in her pocket. She has got money in her account. She has got money in her pocket for the insurance out-of-pocket. And if she starts off with money in her purse to pay for that need, why can't people see that is where the American people are?
If the average American family has less than $1,000 to spend and our plan puts thousands in their account to pay for the healthcare that they know they need, what is the objection to that?
Now, by the way, I think you finally found the objection. There is a concern that Republicans are somehow interjecting abortion politics. And I will point out that Democrats have voted for appropriations bills with Hyde protections since the 1970s. For over four decades, Democrats have voted for language on this issue, and suddenly--suddenly--they are shocked. So instead of giving this patient the money she needs, it is going to be sacrificed on the altar of abortion politics.
I say: Go with her. I say: Support her.
Let's go to the last slide, please.
We need to make healthcare affordable again.
One, we know the Democratic extension will not pass. It is going to stick people with $6,000 deductibles. It does nothing for fraud. It is not a solution. What we need--by the way, I am also going to say this: I am, obviously, saying we don't need the Democratic solution. My Democratic friends will say they don't like the Republican solution.
Let me argue that we try and get an American solution, not an R, not a D, but an A solution. And if we do so, let's give power to the patient, not profit to the insurance company. Let's make healthcare affordable again.
Mr. President, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana is my friend and my colleague. We work together, and he is a real doctor--a real doctor. And what I have read about his medical career is that he treated people with limited income, and I respect him so much for doing that.
Thank you for all that.
I happen to disagree with his policy on this, and let me explain why. How far does $1,000 take you in medical bills? How far does $1,500 take you in medical bills?
Well, I had a knee replacement last year. Do you know what the surgeon's bill was for that? It was $30,000.
Mr. President, $1,000 doesn't take you very far in the 21st century. It didn't take you very far in the 20th century. And to have that as your fallback position to protect yourself--imagine a cancer diagnosis--a shocking cancer diagnosis. And you think: Well, thank goodness I have got $1,000 in the bank for treatment for cancer.
That isn't going to work.
To say that people are going to have money left over at the end of the day and this is what they really want doesn't reflect reality.
I didn't show the poster, but in our proposal taking the 50-year-old couple with 2 kids, 19 and 20, their family would get $5,000 in their account, and the net deductible would be less than the silver plan the Democrats want. And the policy premium would be $6,000 less a year.
So if the plan, that my good friend the minority whip is saying is the better plan, has a higher net deductible, that, I don't think, works for the gentleman's knee replacement.
And the family $5,000 deductible can be applied, so you would have $5,000 top.
I have taken too much time, but thank you for yielding.
No, I am happy to yield, and we came perilously close to debate on the Senate floor, by my recollection. Wouldn't it be something if we did this on a regular basis? Wouldn't it be something if we took this whole issue, the subject matter, and put it in a committee for a real hearing, with experts, where Democrats and Republicans sat at the same table? It would be almost like the U.S. Senate used to be. It doesn't anymore.
What I am suggesting today is simple and direct. I met a waitress at a Chicago Loop restaurant for breakfast last Sunday. She is 63 years old, and she spent her life as a waitress. It has taken its toll on her physically.
She was in tears as she described to me what is going to happen to her if we fail to act the right way today on this legislation. She is going to see her health insurance bill more than double--$300 or $400 more per month. Let me tell you, she doesn't know how she can do it, and I don't either.
That is what we have to address first. Triage, I would say to my friend Dr. Cassidy, triage is first. Help these families pay for their premiums, and then let's do our job. Our job is to sit down and debate his idea, my idea, the ideas of the Senate, and to come up with an alternative that serves the needs of this Nation. That is what the Senate is supposed to do. But this take-it-or-leave-it, high-noon strategy isn't fair.
If, at the end of the day, we fail to help this waitress pay for her premiums and she loses her health insurance, I don't know what is going to happen next. This poor lady is working hard, and she has every day of her life. Why we won't come to her rescue first and then get into this policy debate, I just don't understand.
As Members of the Senate, we cast votes, and many of them are routine, but there are votes that stay with us for decades. I will never forget voting for the Affordable Care Act. It was this time of year, December 24, 2009. The Senate passed a bill that helped make healthcare affordable for millions of Americans.
It was 8 years later, on a late night in 2017, that the late Senator John McCain of Arizona came through those doors at 2 in the morning, stood in the well right by this table, lifted his right arm as high as he could, and came down with the thumbs no. With that, he saved the Affordable Care Act. That ``no'' vote sunk President Trump's first attempt to abolish the Affordable Care Act, and it gave peace of mind to millions of Americans who would come to rely on it.
It has been more than 8 years since Senator McCain showed that courage and 16 years since we passed the original bill. Yet, once again, the Senate is about to take another vote on healthcare that will reverberate for decades throughout America.
The question today is whether the Senate will extend the ACA's enhanced premium tax credits. What is that? In the Tax Code, it is a helping hand to pay your premium based on your family income.
If we fail to extend these tax credits, that waitress I described to you and 22 million Americans will begin to pay double or triple for their insurance in 3 weeks, including 500,000 people living in Illinois. More than 4 million Americans will not be able to afford their insurance at these higher rates and will be forced to forgo health coverage for next year. Merry Christmas.
Senate Democrats have sounded the alarm bell about the need to prevent this catastrophe. We have told the stories of people who have called our offices, crying because they are afraid
The question is whether 13 Republicans will not endorse the Affordable Care Act but will stand by the people who face these premiums and then be willing to sit down and have a meaningful, bipartisan debate on where we should go as a matter of policy. Isn't that what the Senate is all about?
Every Senate Democrat is united behind the plan just to extend the ACA enhanced premium tax credits and ensure continued access to quality, affordable health coverage. Republicans are not united behind any plan. They haven't been for 15 years. The Republicans hate ObamaCare like the Devil hates holy water. They can't imagine voting for it.
What I ask them to do is hold your nose if you don't like it, vote for it today with the promise that you have the power as the majority party in the Senate to introduce a bill and start a meaningful debate in the appropriate committees. It is your authority. You are in the majority.
We need 13 of you today to join us and show the bravery that Senator McCain did in that early morning hour. Otherwise, it will not only be those here in the Senate who will remember this vote; it will be millions of Americans who saw their Senators take their health insurance away.
I want to face this friend of many, many years, this waitress in this restaurant, and tell her we not only had the chance to help her, we did help her. Let's do that together and then go home and decide what we are going to do as a matter of policy and bring that back to the Senate for deliberation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the 275,000 Wisconsinites who buy their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, many of whom are downright scared. They are scared because their healthcare costs are about to double on average. They are scared because they now have to figure out which necessity in their life they can go without. And they are scared because maybe this just puts it beyond reach, and they won't be able to afford healthcare at all.
They are scared, and you know what, we actually have the ability to do something about it. At the end of the day, that is what this job is all about--listening to our constituents, fighting for them. I am not here to instill more anxiety or fear; I am here to help. It is why I first got into public service, and I still believe that to my core.
Right now, what Wisconsinites are crying out for is for some breathing room and healthcare that they can afford. These are real people with very real stories.
Take Mark, a retired firefighter from Eagle River. He wrote to me:
Take Alicia from Chippewa Falls, who works hard as a childcare provider. Like so many workers in the childcare industry, Alicia needs these tax credits to afford their insurance and do what they love.
Callie from Mercer, WI, is a cancer survivor who is facing down a $110 increase to her premiums each month. That might not seem like a lot to my Republican colleagues, but for a local library director in a small, rural, Wisconsin community, a 30-percent increase could be the difference between having insurance or not.
My Republican colleagues have kicked the can and this crisis further and further down the road, and now Wisconsin families are looking at changing careers, coming out of retirement, shuttering their small businesses, or selling their family farm.
These are real, life-changing cost increases that my Republican colleagues seem to be fine with, because, let's be clear, this is, in fact, a choice. It is a fairly simple decision, one that Americans understand: Vote to extend these tax credits or send 22 million Americans off a cliff. The choice is yours.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator, my colleague from Wisconsin, for her remarks.
You know, sometimes the wheels of our democracy don't turn as quickly as we would like. Sometimes progress is painfully slow. But it is a singularly bad day for this body, a bad day for this country, when, far from simply failing to move forward, this body chooses to take a great lurch backward, to decide to make the lives of the American people worse. By letting the Affordable Care Act tax cuts expire, by letting healthcare slip away from families all across our country, today, the majority in this body appears to be prepared to do precisely that.
Now, just a comment or two about my colleague and friend Senator Cassidy's presentation about the Republican plan just now. Senator Cassidy and I are good friends, and we have worked on a lot of bipartisan healthcare legislation to date. But let's be clear. The Republican plan that he is talking about doesn't help people afford their premiums in the first place. That is what this is about.
The other issue that my colleague raised about the Hyde amendment-- the Hyde amendment applies to the Affordable Care Act already. What the Republican plan does is now say that people who pay private premium dollars into the ACA cannot use their private dollars to fund what are called elective abortions.
So I just want to be clear about those two points.
Now I want to talk about the progress we have made and the progress we still need to make when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. It is easy to take it for granted now, as we have grown accustomed to its benefits, but the Affordable Care Act was an important milestone in expanding opportunity for more Americans.
The ACA helped millions of Americans who were previously unable to afford insurance to get lifesaving care for themselves and their families without breaking the bank or facing bankruptcy. It allowed Americans who have preexisting conditions to actually buy insurance. It ended lifetime caps on how much treatment people could get.
Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No. It was the product of a legislative compromise. But has the Affordable Care Act made Americans healthier, strengthened our economy, and saved lives? Yes.
I want to remind people what our healthcare system was like before the ACA was passed. People with preexisting conditions could not get health insurance unless they worked for an employer who offered a group plan, and even then, they had to work enough hours to qualify for that plan.
Even people who had insurance were subjected to something called lifetime caps. Often, the cap was about $1 million, meaning that if you had a terrible accident or expensive disease, the insurer simply stopped covering your care when the limit was reached regardless of how long you had been paying your premiums and regardless of whether you still needed lifesaving care.
Preventive care could be expensive and was often excluded from health insurance coverage.
The ACA changed that. People with preexisting conditions can now buy insurance. People between jobs can buy insurance. Self-employed people can buy insurance. Lifesaving and cost-saving preventive care is covered at no charge. There are no lifetime limits on care.
Now, the smart thing for us to do right now would be for us to build on this progress. There is no shortage of ways in which we need to improve our healthcare system. We need to lower healthcare costs, and there are good, bipartisan proposals in this body to do that. We need to end the inefficient and harmful fragmentation of care. I am ready to work together on a bipartisan basis to do just that.
But rather than tackle those problems, the Trump administration has actively worked to make healthcare even less affordable. This summer, the Republicans gutted Medicaid in order to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. Now, with tax credits for the Affordable Care Act due to expire, the President and Washington Republicans will instead allow health insurance premiums to skyrocket for millions of
In recent weeks, too many of the conversations in this Chamber about the path forward have gotten stuck in the abstract. We have seen proposals that resemble ideological wish lists rather than the type of compromise that would recognize the reality that Americans are facing on the ground. But I can assure you that, for my constituents, rising healthcare costs are not abstract. It is not abstract for a Granite Stater who will have to pay $1,000 more a month for health insurance. It is not abstract for the family who depended on these cuts in order to make ends meet and who doesn't know if they will have to pull from their savings or find a cheaper place to rent just to afford these new premiums.
And it is not abstract for the untold number of Americans who will miss out on routine care and preventive screenings for cancer and other diseases because they couldn't afford their new premiums.
I find myself struck by some of the words that we use in this Chamber to talk about healthcare: risk pool, cost sharing, silver tier, gold tier. Behind all these words and jargon, we are talking about people. We are talking about being sick and being healthy, about living with dignity or struggling in despair. We are talking about living and dying.
This is an issue that demands the most serious of leadership, but plainly that is just not what the American people are getting from Donald Trump's Washington today. Today's vote leaves me with a simple question, a question that the majority in this body ought to answer: By your vote today to make insurance premiums more expensive, who in America wins?
The majority in this body may carry the day with their votes, but who exactly will this victory be for? What family will be made better off by health insurance becoming more expensive? Which child is going to become healthier?
Make no mistake, today's healthcare vote is more than a vote on a single bill. In the greater sense, in the fight to make American life more affordable, in an effort to save the American people from a looming healthcare calamity, the majority of this body, the majority in the House, and, above all, the President himself, are, in short, choosing to abstain. They are throwing up their hands, essentially saying: Nothing we can do here.
Given the choice between keeping healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for millions of Americans or letting these tax cuts expire, the President is content to do nothing. In the face of this healthcare crisis, in the face of Americans of all political stripes clambering for a solution, the Republican majority is deciding that the world's greatest deliberative body ought to shrug its shoulders and abdicate its responsibility.
So, yes, I will close with this: It is a bad day for this country and for the U.S. Senate. And it is a day that the American people will remember.
Mr. President, we spent a lot of time this week talking about the problems of our healthcare system: Premiums are rising; hospitals are struggling; and out-of-pocket costs are out of control.
These problems are not new. And, frankly, notwithstanding all of the rhetoric of my colleagues from the other side, the fact is, these enhanced premium tax credits that we are debating today, if they were extended or not extended, are not going to change the fact that premiums are skyrocketing. They are skyrocketing because of the failure of our current healthcare system.
These problems were used to justify ObamaCare in the first place, and ObamaCare has progressively made them worse. Americans did not keep their doctors, as was promised under ObamaCare; Americans did not keep their insurance plans; and their premiums did not go down. In fact, ObamaCare premiums have risen at roughly double the rate of employer- provided healthcare plans since their inception.
Our Democrat colleagues have only had one response to these skyrocketing premiums: more spending, which they claim is going to stop premium increases. It, in fact, facilitates greater premium increases.
Without ever winning a single Republican vote, they created the Obama premium tax credits, expanded them to all Americans--to Americans of all income levels--and then extended that expansion. These credits did not reduce costs and did not reduce premiums. All they did was shift the cost to taxpayers and help insurance companies to continue to hike premiums higher and higher.
Democrats know that ObamaCare has failed. They themselves have said so on this floor. But with a deadline quickly approaching again--a deadline that was set by my own Democrat colleagues--they say we have no choice but to extend this failed policy one more time on these premium tax credits. This is a policy they could not even make permanent when they controlled the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. Even so, their only offer is more spending.
They call their plan a clean extension. A 3-year extension of this program with no reforms, costing hard-working families $83 billion, with tens of billions of dollars going to insurance companies and fraudsters, is anything but clean.
Twice on this floor this week Republicans have offered the Democrats a unanimous consent to have a temporary extension of these premium tax credits with needed reforms to address waste and fraud and abuse that is rampant, and twice this week that has been rejected.
The Government Accountability Office recently uncovered how embarrassingly easy it is to game this ObamaCare subsidy system, with the Wall Street Journal calling it a ``Mecca for Fraud.''
Even the Washington Post recognized that ``ObamaCare subsidies make it too easy to scam the system.''
Fortunately, we have another option. Instead of the minority leader's $83 billion extension, which would do absolutely nothing to reduce fraud and would keep driving premiums higher, Senator Cassidy and I have offered a fiscally responsible proposal that will reduce premiums, save taxpayers money, and give Americans control over their healthcare. Our bill provides prefunded, patient-driven health savings accounts for Americans enrolled in qualified ObamaCare bronze and catastrophic plans.
Importantly, low-income Americans will still receive subsidies for those ObamaCare plans through the permanent portion of the premium tax credits system. Americans who choose this option will have both insurance coverage and help paying for their remaining out-of-pocket costs--all without giving insurance companies a reason to enroll them in plans without their knowledge, as has occurred for years.
Our bill also fixes an error in the original design of ObamaCare by funding the cost-sharing reductions that it mandated, reducing benchmark premiums by 11 percent. Let me point that out. That piece of our proposal will reduce premiums by 11 percent.
The minority leader's plan is not going to pass. But if just a few of my Democrat colleagues will join us in voting for our bill, we can put this crisis behind us and lay the groundwork for true reforms.
For instance, Senator Wyden and I remain intent on getting our bipartisan pharmacy benefit manager reform to the President's desk. We have many other bipartisan agreements on needed healthcare reforms that we need to move forward on.
The choice before us is clear: We can continue with business as usual and extend the same policy that has brought our healthcare system to the point where every Member of this body admits that it is broken or we can try something different. We can change the incentives that ObamaCare gives insurers to drive premiums higher and put our confidence in Americans to make the best decisions about their own healthcare.
If we fall off the Democrat-created subsidy cliff, it will not be because we did not have a different choice.
Mr. President, today is D-day--decision day--for Republican Senators. Will Republicans side with the American people and avert the disastrous impending healthcare crisis or will they abandon American families as premiums shoot through the roof come January 1?
In a few moments, the Senate will vote on two bills: the Republican bill and Democrat's clean, simple extension of the ACA tax credits.
I say to my Republican colleagues: Our bill is the last train to leave the station. It is the only realistic option before the Senate today that solves the healthcare crisis. If Republicans don't climb aboard, there won't be another chance to act before premiums skyrocket next year.
Now, Republicans have dithered long enough. Democrats are fighting to lower costs for the American people, while Republicans are fighting among themselves.
And let me say this about the Republican bill. The Republican bill is not true healthcare reform. It is not a healthcare plan whatsoever. It is junk insurance. The Republican bill is simply junk insurance.
For a while, it actually looked like the Republicans wouldn't put up a bill at all. But after that became too embarrassing an option for them, they used Scotch tape and glue to come up with this ridiculous proposal that can't be taken seriously.
The Republican plan does nothing--nothing--to extend the tax credits for even a day. Our bill, of course, extends them for 3 years.
Under the Republican plan, the big idea is essentially to hand people about $80 a month and wish them good luck; say that you are on your own no matter what happens. And to even qualify for that check, Americans would be forced onto bare bones bronze plans with sky-high deductibles: 7,000 or 10,000 for an individual and tens of thousands for a couple. So the deductibles are so high, even that is not paid for by the $80 a month. And then Americans are stuck and have nothing, nothing, nothing.
The Republican plan is a ``When you get sick, you go broke'' plan, plain and simple.
The only answer--the only right answer--to solve this crisis is what Democrats propose today, a clean, simple extension of current tax credits. Our bill is the only plan that halts premiums from shooting through the roof.
And as Americans know, this is not a symbolic vote. This is a life- and-death vote for millions of people wondering if they will be able to afford health insurance next year.
Millions will lose health insurance. Tens of millions will have to change plans and doctors and get high deductibles and high copayments that they can hardly afford healthcare if we don't do this. So America is counting on us--counting on us--the Senate.
Republicans, America is counting on you to do the right thing and vote yes on our bill.
A ``yes'' vote on our bill means premiums will not double or triple or more starting January 1. A ``yes'' vote means lower costs for the American people and greater help for them to pay for the things they need. A ``yes'' vote means dignity, security, and peace of mind for tens of millions of American families. It means our healthcare system averts a disaster.
There is only one right thing to do, and that is for Republicans to vote yes on our bill. The American people will not forget which way Senators vote today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to S. 3386, a bill to provide a health savings account contribution to certain enrollees, to reduce health care costs, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to S. 3385, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the enhancement of the health care premium tax credit, shall be brought to a close?
The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines).
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:
The resolution (S. Res. 532) was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of December 4, 2025, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
On page S8655, December 11, 2025, second column, the following appears: The resolution (S. Res. 432) was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S. Res. 532) was agreed to. (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of December 4, 2025, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'') The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), and the Senator from Florida (Mrs. Moody).
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 22, as follows:
I move to refer the House message on S. 1071 to the Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment numbered 3963.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 593.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant executive clerk read the nomination of Jared Isaacman, of Pennsylvania, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 594.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant executive clerk read the nomination of Douglas Weaver, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2026.
Mr. President, the deadly collision that occurred here in our Nation's Capital between American Airlines Flight 5342 from Wichita, KS, and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter on January 29, 2025, forever changed how we look at and think about air travel.
There were numerous circumstances that led to this horrific incident, and the NTSB's--the National Transportation Safety Board--critical investigation into this collision is continuing even today.
While the NTSB's final recommendations have not yet been released, the Chair of the NTSB, Jennifer Homendy, took an unusual step in publicly stating that the current version of NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--does not adequately address the safety concerns surrounding the mixed airspace around DCA.
She even went on to say that the legislation--NDAA--``reverses safety changes made after the mid-air collision; after the NTSB issued urgent safety recommendations; and after Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy rightfully implemented NTSB's urgent safety recommendations.''
Based on the data and recommendations we have received so far from NTSB, we know that, one, there should have been limitations to rotary travel in high-traffic areas of commercial air travel; two, all aircraft in this space should be using position broadcast technology, with nearly no exceptions; and three, the users of this congested airspace should be communicating problems to each other, like the 15,000 near misses that occurred around DCA in a 3-year period between commercial planes and rotary aircraft--15,000 near misses in a 3-year period of time.
The current NDAA text includes a provision which misses the mark on two of these must-have provisions; therefore, I will insist and be working with my colleagues to amend the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act or to otherwise pass legislation, perhaps in the appropriations process--I am a member of that committee--to make sure that NDAA language is at least, as a minimum, abiding by the safety standards that were set in place after the crash of January 29.
Our aviation system is fragile. I chair the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation and Space. We have seen this in testimony time and time again. There is fragility in the safety of our air system.
Over the last year, Congress has passed significant legislation to invest in the future safety of our airspace and introduced legislation to make our airspace safer, including the ROTOR Act. Now is not the time to step back from these efforts.
I am grateful for the hard work of NTSB Chair Homendy and her team, and I look forward to receiving their final recommendations when that time arises.
I also want to say thank you to the families of the victims of Flight 5342, who have continued to be vocal advocates for the safety of our airspace in honor of the loved ones they lost.
It is important that we not take a step back but take a step forward, and I will work in every way that I can with my colleagues to see that we accomplish that before the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, on Monday, President Donald Trump announced he will green light NVIDIA selling H200 chips to China.
Now, these are advanced chips that the Chinese military has been after for years. Trump's own Department of Justice has called them ``the building blocks of AI superiority.''
Just hours before Trump's announcement, the Department of Justice announced a crackdown on a sophisticated trafficking network that allegedly smuggled $50 million worth of these chips to China.
Why? Because they know that China is gaining access to these chips, and that poses a serious threat to our technological leadership and national security.
So why did the President make this bad deal that sells out the American economy and sells out American national security? It is simple. In the Trump administration, money talks. And NVIDIA's CEO, Jensen Huang, knows it. Mr. Huang understands that, in this administration, being able to cozy up to Donald Trump might be the most important corporate CEO skill of all. Mr. Huang paid a million-dollar- a-plate dinner to be with the President. Mr. Huang's company has donated to the President's ballroom.
And Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's former company, now run by his son, stands to make loads of money if NVIDIA's stock surges.
Those are just the most obvious possible reasons to cut this deal, and who knows what else Mr. Huang might have done behind closed doors to persuade President Trump and Secretary Lutnick into making this dangerous concession.
The American public deserves answers. Mr. Huang should be brought in front of Congress to testify under oath, and he should be joined by Secretary Lutnick and every other Trump administration official involved in this decision.
Congress does not need to stand by helplessly. Both Republicans and Democrats understand the risks here, and we should pass bipartisan legislation that reins in this administration as soon as possible.
The Guaranteeing Access and Innovation for National AI act--called the GAIN Act--that Senator Banks and I introduced would prohibit NVIDIA from shipping advanced chips to China while American universities, American startups, and American small businesses are waiting in line to buy the company's chips.
Senator Ricketts and Senator Coons have introduced another bill that Senator Banks and I support. It is called the SAFE Chips Act, and it would prohibit the President from green-lighting advanced AI chip sales to China.
Republicans and Democrats have legislation ready to go, and we should get this done before it is too late. Senator Thune should schedule either or both bills for a vote immediately.
Here is another thing that Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to keep an eye on:
Will Donald Trump muzzle his own Justice Department because he does not want Americans to know that he is selling out our national security?
Will Donald Trump order the Assistant Attorney General for National Security and the U.S. attorney for the
Will Donald Trump fire those Justice Department officials for exposing the national security risks of the deal that Donald Trump just cut?
Will Donald Trump tell his Attorney General to drop all investigations into these national security concerns and turn a blind eye to how the Chinese military could use these chips to train weapon systems that could endanger American lives?
I am deeply concerned that Donald Trump will target the work at the Department of Justice in a cynical attempt to hide the truth from the American people.
And in case Donald Trump directs his Department of Justice to take down the public evidence or to cover it up, I am going to read into the Senate Record exactly how senior law enforcement officials warned about the dangers of allowing these chips to power the development of cutting-edge technology in China.
Here is what the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas had to say, and I am going to quote this:
That is what the U.S. attorney--Donald Trump's own U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas--had to say about the chips that NVIDIA has just been permitted by Donald Trump to put into the hands of the Chinese.
And here is what the Assistant Attorney General for National Security at Trump's Department of Justice had to say--again, Trump's own Assistant Attorney General for National Security:
The President's most basic duty is to protect the economic and national security of the American people. And, instead, President Trump is bowing to foreign dictators like Xi Jinping and selling out our national security to billionaire corporate interests that pay for special White House dinners and a gold-plated ballroom.
Never before has a President and a tech CEO so brazenly conspired against the interests of the American people. Congress has a responsibility to stop it and stop it now.
Mr. President, I came to the floor earlier this year to warn of the imminent threat that Islam poses to our great country. Unfortunately, that threat turned into reality just a few weeks ago when a deranged jihadist shot two of our National Guardsmen just steps from the White House. Just before Thanksgiving, SPC Sarah Backstrom and SSG Andrew Wolfe were on patrol near the White House when they were attacked by Biden-imported Afghan Islamists. A 29-year-old jihadist radically, viciously attacked them, killing Specialist Backstrom and leaving Staff Sergeant Wolfe in critical condition.
He is still fighting for his life today. Our prayers go out to him and his family.
So let's make it very clear. The Afghan terrorist attacked these two soldiers because that is what Islam teaches. The Quran says to kill all infidels. That means all people who don't believe in Islam.
So let's not mince words about this. Islamists want every single American, and especially Christian Americans, they want them dead.
In 2021, Joe Biden orchestrated the botched Afghan withdrawal, which was one of the most embarrassing days in our country's history. Thirteen American soldiers lost their lives as a direct result of the Biden disastrous, misinformed leadership, not to mention he empowered the Taliban, who came crawling out of the hills, to take back control of Afghanistan.
To make matters worse, Joe Biden then allowed more than 190,000--let me repeat that--190,000 unvetted Afghans into this country, no questions asked, not to mention the more than 7 billion in equipment that was left behind for the Taliban, which, by the way, now has been showing up all over the world after it has been sold.
These potential terrorists are now living amongst us, residing in our neighborhoods, going to our kids' schools, and mooching off our taxpayer benefits.
That withdrawal was an embarrassment and a stain on our country.
The 29-year-old, deranged terrorist who shot two National Guardsmen in DC was working with the CIA in Afghanistan and was part of an elite unit that was supposed to be helping fight our Nation's enemies. Clearly, this person was deranged and should never have been allowed to work with our intelligence Agencies or to come to the United States where he viciously attacked two American guardsmen while chanting ``Allahu Akbar.''
Make no mistake, this is part of the deep state's globalist agenda that aims to destroy this country through mass Islamic migration.
Where is the outrage from the people in this Chamber? I haven't heard it. If we don't do something to stop this Islamic takeover of our country, we will soon be called the ``United Caliphate of America.''
If the previous administration prioritized protecting American citizens instead of inviting terrorists to our country, Sarah Backstrom may still be alive today.
Thanks to President Trump, a travel ban has been placed on Afghans, along with people from 18 other Third World countries, including Somalia. And I have got a message to the immigrants from these Islamist countries: If you hate this country, refuse to go by our laws, and chant ``Death to America,'' it is time to go home.
There are a lot of good people that come from Middle Eastern countries and go by our laws and assimilate with our culture, but if you come here otherwise, it is time to go home.
The Trump administration is also prioritizing the deportation of Afghans who are already here illegally. You know, I am 100 percent behind President Trump's effort to get rid of all Islamists who hate our country, as I just previously said, take advantage of the system when they come here. Don't defraud our government. Don't come here to try to destroy us. Assimilate with the Americans in this country to make our country better. We should be welcoming immigrants who are willing to assimilate with our culture and to contribute to our society. That is what we want. Being in this country is a privilege, not a right. If you are an immigrant coming to this country, you need to leave your old way of life and the traditions behind and come here and work with us.
Unfortunately, many of the Islamists who are here are not doing that. They are doing whatever they can to turn our country into the Third World hell hole that they came from.
We are different. We want a great country, not a Third World country. These foreigners don't understand what this country stands for. This country owes you nothing but an opportunity to succeed. It doesn't owe you a handout.
Islamist immigrants come to this country with a sense of entitlement, and that is what this country is not about. We will give you a hand but not everything. They believe the American people owe them something, and we don't owe anybody anything. They take advantage of our system.
If this is your attitude, we don't want you here. We want you to help this country become better.
The Somali population in Minnesota, as we have been watching on the news for the last few days, is an example of a group that thinks they are entitled to take anything they want from the American people and force Americans to bow to their will.
Somali immigrants in Minnesota were recently caught stealing more than 1 billion and counting from American taxpayers--stealing. They pretended to use the money to feed children or help people with autism, but really they were stealing. They were stealing the money and sending it to terrorists in Somalia--all proven.
This is very evil, and it is straight from the pit of Hell. Terrorists are driving around in Toyota Land Cruisers in Somalia, bought and paid for by the American taxpayers.
FOX News recently reported that members of Minnesota's Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar's inner circle--people working for her--were personally profiting from this fraud. Omar held at least one event at one of the restaurants named in the massive fraud scheme. One of Congresswoman Omar's staffers has already been convicted for his role in the fraud. It runs very deep. All of this has taken place inside of Omar's congressional district, and she is doing everything she can to defend these Somali criminals.
These people were empowered by woke and clueless so-called Governor Tim Walz, whose government handed the funds to these Somalia criminals and turned a blind eye.
For example, one of the scams run by the Somalia nonprofit disguised itself as a housing assistance program. Sounds great. The initial budget for this program was $2.6 million. However, the annual budget quickly increased to over $100 million due to fake billing and fraud. Whose money is that? The American taxpayers'.
There were red flags all over the place. Tim Walz had every opportunity to see this, investigate, and stop this fraud and corruption. Instead, he looked the other way. That makes him complicit. He should go to jail for this. Anybody else would.
Now he is trying to deflect by calling those who are angry about the Somali fraud racist. Sure they do. That is the word they always use. This has nothing to do with racism. Some illegal immigrants stole more than $1 billion, and counting, from the American taxpayers--again, proven. That should make every single American's blood boil.
Democrats invite terrorists from all over the world into this country. They let them steal our benefits, enjoy our schools, overrun our hospitals, vote in our elections, and then steal our tax dollars to send back to their home countries to fund terrorism.
By the way, I have seen all of these woke Democrats, like Omar, calling Somalia a wonderful place. If it is such a wonderful place, why doesn't she move back? If Somalia is all that, why is the terrorist group al-Shabaab murdering civilians by the masses, and why is the capital of Somalia considered to be one of the most dangerous capitals in the world due to frequent terrorist bombings, targeted killings, and ambushes? That sounds like a place no one would ever want to visit or live.
Predictably, Somalis often flee their country, and woke Democrats welcomed these often-unvetted individuals with open arms to the United States through illegal programs. But they make no attempt to adapt to our way and our American lives. Instead, they try to turn whatever American city they are hiding out in into Somalia 2.0.
Thankfully, the Trump administration is working around the clock to reverse the evil open borders agenda that was allowed to thrive under Joe Biden's administration.
Look, despite what the woke media will tell you, President Trump is not anti-immigration. President Trump is incentivizing and welcoming immigrants into the country who are going to come here to contribute and assimilate and love our country like we do. That is what we are all about. If that is not you--if they don't want to do that--again, we don't want you here.
The Trump administration has worked tirelessly this year to arrest and deport millions of illegals brought into the country by the Biden administration. Patriotic Americans are thankful for the work of DHS and ICE and what they are doing to clean up our streets.
If we don't take this threat seriously, more terrorist attacks will take place, and more stories of third world Islamists defrauding our country and using our tax dollars to fund terrorism against the United States will become commonplace.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard released a report not long ago about the imminent threat of terrorism that is facing our country. It is here. The recent terrorist attack in DC may just be the beginning of Islamic plans to destroy this country. The 29-year-old psychopath who did this should be hung in the streets.
We need to send a message to every terrorist hiding out in this country just waiting to attack: We are not going to put up with this nonsense. You will be punished to the fullest extent of the law if you commit violence against American citizens.
It is time to wake up, and it is time for all Americans to speak up. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue; this is an American issue. That is why I raised hell when I heard that the Islamic Academy of Alabama was looking to build a bigger campus in Hoover, AL, just last week. I looked at their website. They openly admit that they teach the Quran. The Quran teaches that it is righteous to kill anyone who is not a Muslim. Think about that.
The media has called me a racist for calling this out. Radical Islam isn't a race; it is a political ideology, and it is a cult. No, I am not a racist, and I clearly--people back in Alabama agree with me. I was proud to see hundreds of Alabamians show up to protest at the zoning meeting where the building proposal was being considered.
I was asked about it, and I said the only place this Islamic Academy should be moving to is out of Alabama and out of our country. We don't want that talk. Come here and assimilate with our laws; go by our laws, nobody else's.
As a result, this Islamic school withdrew their proposal.
This is an example of what it is going to take to defeat this poisonous ideology. This is an example of what we do not want to deal with. It is going to take all of us red-blooded Americans coming together and saying enough is enough.
Europe has lost the war of immigration. It is no longer recognizable. For a lot of countries in Europe, mass immigration of Islamists has ruined their way of life. They turned a blind eye, like we are at the moment, and are going to have to fight in the streets to get their countries back.
It is coming. That is exactly what is going to happen in this country in a few short years if we don't act now to save our country and our way of life.
I achieved the highest honor of my life this year, receiving the title of ``grandfather'' to Rosie Grace, my first granddaughter. I want her to grow up in the same America that I had the opportunity and privilege to grow up in. If we don't stand up now, our grandchildren's future is going to be lost forever. We have to draw a line in the sand: You are either an American who loves this country or you are not.
It is the job of the DOJ, the DHS, and the FBI to arrest these people, these terrorists, these radical terrorists, and either put them in jail or send them home. Now is the time. We do not need to let the clock run out on us. Let's not be Europe. Next year may be too late.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, in Texas, my constituents who are on the Affordable Care Act exchanges, otherwise known as ObamaCare, are experiencing an 18-percent increase in their insurance premiums. Now, if you look at employer-provided coverage, which covers many, many more Americans, those increases in costs are going up, roughly, in the 5- to 6-percent range. So you might wonder why the huge disparity between ObamaCare and the rest of healthcare.
Of course, our healthcare system is pretty fragmented. We have people who have employer-provided coverage, seniors who have Medicare, low- income individuals who qualify for Medicaid, veterans who qualify for the VA system, or TRICARE. But for the group of people who believed what President Obama said when he sold ObamaCare
I still remember like it was yesterday, the President said: If you like your policy, you can keep your policy.
That was a lie.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Well, that was not true either.
Then he said that average premiums would go down about $2,500 for people on these Affordable Care Act exchanges. Well, that wasn't true either.
Years ago, I was attorney general of the State of Texas. We had a consumer protection division where we would sue people who would consciously defraud consumers, and if this isn't one of the biggest consumer frauds perpetrated in our lifetime--maybe in history--I don't know what is.
No Republican voted for ObamaCare as we didn't think that was the best solution to provide access to healthcare. Only Democrats voted for it. Now they have created this incredible mess--this unworkable, unsustainable, unaffordable healthcare system within the rest of our healthcare system. They look to us, the Republicans--the people who did not create this problem--and ask: OK. Now how are you going to fix it?
They don't have any better ideas. As a matter of fact, what they want is more of the same. They want zero reforms. They want more waste, fraud, and abuse. They want more money to go to insurance companies. They want 100 percent of the tax dollars that paid for the Affordable Care Act, or the ObamaCare exchanges, to continue going to insurance companies.
President Trump has said: Let's get the money to the consumers so they can choose what they want.
I think that is a better idea.
Plus, insurance companies skim about 20 percent off of those taxpayer-provided subsidies for their administrative costs and profits. And do you know what? Insurance companies are among the most profitable companies in America--certainly since ObamaCare started.
Then, finally, they want to break what has been, roughly--let me see--a 50-year consensus on whether tax dollars should be used to pay for abortions. We know that the issue of abortion divides much of America, but one area that we have agreed on is this consensus named after Henry Hyde, who was a famous legislator and House Member from Illinois. It is something called the Hyde amendment, which says that no tax dollars can go for abortions, and Democrats want to throw that out the window.
Well, rather than just point the finger at our Democratic colleagues, we actually have come up with a better idea, and I am grateful to our colleagues Senator Crapo, who is chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Cassidy, a medical doctor, who is head of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, for coming up with an alternative proposal that is predicted to bring premium prices down about 11 percent. Now, that is real money that people can use to spend on other things.
Again, an 18-percent increase each year after year, after year? This is a train wreck for people on these Affordable Care Act policies.
As I said, the proposal by Senator Crapo and Senator Cassidy aligns with what President Trump has said, which is, let's get the money to the people. Wouldn't you rather have the money to buy the kind of coverage that you want and need? We are not all the same. We have people of different ages with different healthcare needs. Some young and healthy people may figure they don't need as comprehensive a coverage as older folks do. But our Democratic colleagues believe that we are all cut out of the same cloth and that we are all the same when it comes to a need for healthcare, and it is just not true.
This legislation that has been proposed is not by the Democrats, who want more of the same--a broken system. The alternative that Senator Crapo and Senator Cassidy proposed, we voted on, and our Democratic colleagues did not support it at all. We sure didn't vote for this mess, what we call Dems' dirty ObamaCare bill. This is a disaster, and it was sold under false pretenses. We need to do better for our constituents who need access to affordable healthcare.
Well, our Democratic colleagues are calling for a clean extension of the enhanced ObamaCare subsidies because they don't want any changes in what I have described here, and that is the heart of the problem. We know there is a whole host of problems with this ObamaCare subsidy, and any extension that fails to address it is more apt to be described as what I would call a dirty bill. It doesn't solve the problem.
So what are the issues?
Well, first of all, we know that these subsidies are rife with fraud; in other words, your tax dollar is being misappropriated to fraudsters. We have been saying that all along.
Now we have a new report from the Government Accountability Office which demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt what we have always suspected to be true. They have documented it. The report paints a picture that makes the notion of a so-called clean extension, with no changes, outright laughable. That is not a clean extension.
The investigators at the GAO created fake identities and Social Security numbers for 24 individuals who did not exist. They did this in order to find out what would happen when they took advantage of these ObamaCare subsidies.
They took these imaginary 24 and tried to enroll them in Affordable Care Act plans through the ObamaCare exchanges for 2024 and 2025. Shockingly, they were able to successfully enroll almost all of these imaginary individuals in subsidized coverage because the insurance companies were more than happy to take those tax dollars in exchange for providing this phantom coverage.
For 2024, the auditors were able to secure health coverage for all four of the applicants submitted, worth approximately $2,350 per month. In 2025, 19 of the 20 applicants were able to qualify for subsidized coverage worth more than $10,000 per month--and these people didn't exist.
Of the 24 fake identities, 1 of them was not allowed to be enrolled. All the incentives for the insurance companies are: Let's issue the policy. We don't care if this is a real person or not. What we want is the premium dollar, and we want the taxpayer to pay for it.
The notion that someone can enroll in a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance policy with a nonexistent identity should be enough to stop us dead in our tracks and say: We need to change it. We need to fix this. But the fraud does not stop there.
GAO also found more than 29,000 instances in 2023 and nearly 68,000 instances in 2024 of a single Social Security number being used to enroll in more than 1 plan in a given year. So you had people with the same Social Security number able to enroll in multiple plans in a given year; meaning, these Social Security numbers were being traded and assigned to more than one person.
Again, all the incentives are for the insurance companies to issue as many policies as they can because that is how they make more money.
During its probe, GAO discovered that the Federal Marketplace does not prohibit multiple enrollments per Social Security number. So under the status quo, which Democrats want to continue, one person could enroll in multiple policies. Again, in some instances, they might not even know that they are enrolled in multiple policies.
The excuse given for this practice is it protects the Social Security number's holder from fraud or identity theft, but I am sure we could find a better safeguard against Social Security fraud than simply letting multiple people enroll in healthcare with the same Social Security number without raising any questions or any red flags.
So imagine if you were a victim of identity theft. Wouldn't you want to be notified if somebody was using your identity, your Social Security number, in order to get health insurance?
Democrats have been telling us, time and time again, that illegal immigrants cannot access taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. But we know from the GAO report that there are no mechanisms that prevent an illegal alien from enrolling in coverage if they have access to somebody else's Social Security number.
As if this isn't enough, the list of offenses go on and on and on.
In 2024, CMS reported approximately 275,000 reports from consumers that
But this underscores one of the most significant problems that my Republican colleagues and I have raised with these so-called ObamaCare enhanced subsidies. They directly line the pockets of insurance companies without lowering the costs for consumers and taxpayers, and they do so in a way that is rife with fraud.
When insurance brokers are enrolling patients or making changes to their coverage without their consent, the insurance company receives those tax dollars for the enrollee. But since the patient doesn't--or may not--have knowledge that they have even been enrolled, or perhaps they are already enrolled in some other policy elsewhere, the insurance company will have to pay out zero in claims.
That is what insurance companies like. They like to collect the premium, and they like to pay as few claims as possible. So it is a perfect arrangement for them, but it is not for the taxpayer.
These ObamaCare-enhanced subsidies are rife with fraud and should not be extended without meaningful reforms. In addition, the problems raised by the GAO report, the subsidies don't contain Hyde protections. I mentioned that a moment ago.
People who have a conscientious objection to abortion policies shouldn't have to be forced, using their tax dollars, to subsidize it for people who want to fund abortions and transgender procedures.
Again, this used to be the 50-year-long consensus known as the Hyde amendment. Many hard-working taxpayers who elected us have religious or moral objections to these operations--myself included. And the government should not be forcing Americans to participate or subsidize practices that violate their deeply held beliefs by financing them with their tax dollars.
The Democrats' plan does nothing to address rampant fraud, the use of tax dollars to line the pockets of insurance companies, and the lack of Hyde protections in these subsidies. The lack of these changes does not mean this extension proposed by Democrats is clean--far from it.
We understand--I understand--that Texans need access to affordable healthcare, but this is not it. We look forward to working together to find a real workable solution to healthcare affordability.
What I worry about is that our Democrat colleagues really don't want to solve this problem. They want to have a political issue they can ride all the way to the midterm elections. That is not just a cynical view of mine, I think that is a very likely reality.
We can do better. We need to do better. Our constituents expect us to do better by working together to come up with affordable solutions for them without taking advantage of the taxpayers and lining the pockets of wealthy insurance companies.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the unaffordability of healthcare, a crisis created and perpetuated by my Democrat colleagues across the aisle.
Fifteen years ago, without a single Republican vote, congressional Democrats authored and signed into law the so-called Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.
Ever since, congressional Democrats, without Republican support, have continued to prop up this failed system with tax credits and bogus incentives to hide a broken foundation. Congressional Democrats even expanded these tax credits under the guise of the pandemic--again, on a wholly partisan basis--not once but twice, which included setting a deadline for their expiration this year.
Now they are expecting the American public to believe that Republicans are culpable--culpable--for what the Democrats have done. They have clearly broken the system.
When ObamaCare passed in 2010, Democrats promised the American people that this legislation would make insurance affordable. Sadly, this promise has gone unfulfilled. I have heard from constituents across my home State of Tennessee who are grappling with the realities of this broken system.
In 2014, the premium for a benchmark plan was $197. That is 2014. In 2026, that premium is expected to be $711. That is an increase of 260 percent.
As if this wasn't enough evidence, take the story from a constituent in East Tennessee who is self-employed. He and wife own and operate a consulting firm. For his family of three, their insurance premium for the exact same plan they had this year will increase from $1,400 a month to $2,200 a month; no new coverage, no additional family members, just higher cost from an inefficient and fraud-ridden system that is collapsing under its own weight.
This is not affordable health insurance. If health insurance were truly affordable, then Tennesseans like the one I just mentioned would not be forced to rely on taxpayer subsidies just to afford their monthly premium, not to mention out-of-pocket costs, copays, and coinsurance.
Beyond affordability, the Democrats promised to ``fix'' the healthcare system without adding to the national deficit. Their reforms were supposed to lower the deficit by more than $100 billion. Instead, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, ObamaCare has cost taxpayers an additional $1.3 trillion. The deficit has continued to grow, with healthcare spending being a driver of that deficit.
Welcome to socialism, my friends.
ObamaCare was supposed to ``end abuses by insurance companies'' and create what they call a ``robust and competitive'' marketplace.
Well, ObamaCare has been nothing but a profit-making machine for insurance companies. ObamaCare has funded tens of billions of dollars, especially in pandemic-era subsidies, directly to insurance companies. And we have seen insurance companies' profits balloon to historic levels.
Now, let's talk about the fraud that prevails in the ObamaCare system. We will never have a competitive marketplace when that marketplace is riddled with fraud.
As a test for the ease and the extent of the fraud that plagues ObamaCare, the GAO created applications for fictitious individuals--all using invalid information--and submitted these fake applications to the Federal ObamaCare exchanges for enrollment. The results--shocking.
Of the 24 invalid applications that were submitted, 23 of them--that is more than 95 percent of the applications--were wrongly approved for subsidized health insurance. Get that. Over 95 percent of these fraudulent applications were approved to be subsidized in ObamaCare.
As of this September, 18 of the 20 fake enrollees for 2025 are still covered. Not only did the ObamaCare exchange not identify these fraudulent identities, but insurers didn't either. Why? Well, perhaps it is because those 18 applicants paid more than $10,000 per month to the insurance companies for these nonexistent patients. The money wasn't paid to the patients. The money was paid directly to the insurance companies to the tune of $10,000 each. No wonder the insurance companies aren't complaining. No costs, no services provided; it all falls to the bottom-line profitability of the insurers when this happens.
The solution to this floundering system, created by the Democrats without a single Republican vote, is certainly not what Democrats have proposed today. They want to continue wasting Americans' hard-earned dollars.
Earlier today on the Senate floor there was a stark difference of views. On one side, Senate Democrats proposed a 3-year extension along with the repeal of anti-fraud provisions that we passed during the Working Families Tax Cut. More fraud, more waste, more ill-obtained profits for insurers. This unserious, partisan proposal would cost a whopping $83 billion. It would not
Instead, Republicans are offering real solutions, solutions that will lower benchmark premiums by 11 percent, save $30 billion by appropriating cost-sharing reductions, and empower patients to make their own healthcare decisions.
There are further Republican solutions being debated right now, solutions that add serious fraud protections and ensure that wealthy Americans are not receiving taxpayer subsidies, solutions that ensure no Federal funds are used for abortions; that ensure illegal immigrants aren't accessing these credits to free-ride and overwhelm the American healthcare system.
I hope my Democratic colleagues will stop playing their political games and begin to work with Republicans to actually lower the cost of healthcare for the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion today following the votes on the floor this morning about healthcare and healthcare costs.
It was just about a year ago exactly--it was December 12 of last year--I spoke to a reporter from Alaska, and we were talking about just the staggering costs of healthcare costs and what we were seeing with the rise at that time. I pointed out to this reporter that Alaska had already seen 3 years of premium increases that exceeded 50 percent in total. This was putting a pressure on individual and household budgets in a way that people were telling me that this is an unsustainable trend.
I said then that we are going to have to address the issue of the enhanced premium tax credits at the Federal level. We are going to need to address the fact that these come to an end at the end of this calendar year. And I said then we have got a year to kind of figure this out, to buy time to pursue what I feel is important, and that is true reform--some of the long-term reforms that will not just help us address the cost of health insurance but, more importantly, the overall cost of healthcare in this country. That is the driver there. That is the problem.
So that was about a year ago--almost exactly a year ago, and yet here we are. Little has changed. Key transparency in legislation remains stalled. Too many Alaskans are facing premium increases that are now approaching 500 percent. Think about what that means. I have shared with some colleagues a text that I received from a friend of mine in Fairbanks, and she and her husband will be looking at the potential for premiums in the range of $36,000. Nobody--nobody that I know of--can afford premiums for $36,000.
So we know we have got a job here in the Congress. We know that we have to address this issue of rising costs to healthcare. But what we are facing right now, literally, on this 11th day of December, the immediate issue is this expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits and this cliff that is in front of thousands of Alaskans--about 24,000 Alaskans. Millions of Americans are facing this.
So this morning we saw what we saw. The Senate voted on two dueling healthcare proposals to address this healthcare cliff. Both proposals were partisan in nature. Neither one was written in a committee setting or reported through what we refer to as the regular order process. Unfortunately, neither really included any attempt at compromise. Neither tried to gain the support from the other side or to address perhaps the very valid concerns that were raised by the other side, and so it is no surprise that we are where we are, which is two failed votes on the Senate floor.
And those measures failed. But, Mr. President, I would just suggest that we have failed. We have failed. This institution here in this Senate, we failed to work together. We failed to reach consensus. We failed to help all those who are facing these, shockingly, completely unaffordable increases in their healthcare premiums as they are looking at the new year.
We voted on a Democratic proposal as part of the agreement that allowed us to reopen the Federal Government after a record-setting but ultimately a pointless 43-day shutdown. And the headline of that measure was that it would extend the current subsidies for 3 years.
Unfortunately--unfortunately--there is no recognition of the much needed reforms. The two speakers preceding me both pointed out there are flaws in the existing system. If we are going to be addressing a program and a continuation of it, I think it is our responsibility to make sure that we are making sure that these programs don't have ways-- that they are not being abused.
We also voted on a Republican proposal which would have prefunded health savings accounts. This is something that so many Americans are very familiar with, but it would allow for Americans to receive dollars more directly in their hands, to go in their pockets for their own care while also funding cost-sharing reductions projected to reduce premium costs down the line and some other provisions. But it was good work by the chairman of the HELP Committee as well working with the chairman of the Finance Committee. And I was encouraged by what we were beginning to see there, but there were flaws, quite honestly, with that approach as well.
So where did I end up? I ended up voting in favor of the motion to proceed to both of these proposals, but I want to be clear here. It is not because I fully endorse the Democratic proposal and I fully endorse the Republican proposal. Neither of the proposals, in fairness, met the challenge, as far as I am concerned.
The Democratic proposal would have extended the status quo under the Affordable Care Act which, as we have heard, has failed to restrain costs, and it has done so for longer than necessary to build the stability that I think we need to develop better policy.
More importantly, it included no reforms--no reforms whatsoever. We have seen examples of how the system has been abused, and as stewards of Federal taxpayer dollars, it is incumbent on us to address matters like that.
So making sure that there were legitimate reforms, making sure that we don't set up another cliff just like we would have done under the Democratic proposal--it would have set up another cliff in 2029. And that cliff would look even more staggering if we just continued to allow and subsidize unchecked premium growth.
And then on the Republican proposal over here, again, I give credit to the authors of that measure because it did focus on some longer term reforms that I do believe can help people over time. But what it didn't address was the immediate situation that folks are facing: this immediate cliff, the imminent pain that is going to come with this massive spike in premiums in Alaska.
Again, maybe it is more extreme in other States, but we are still one of the 50 States. And when you are talking about premium increases that are doubling or, in many cases, tripling, that is not sustainable. So we had a proposal that had its flaws. There were also some provisions in the Republican bill that we know were not going to garner support from across the aisle.
And I guess where I am today--as most Members have left the Chamber, have left the building, they are going back to their States for the weekend--we are leaving with unfinished business, and this is something that we have known was coming for a long time, for a long time. It is not like this just crept up on us. We had a chance to address it in budget reconciliation, but we couldn't agree to do so. We were told: No, no, no. You know, we have got a lot of time on that. We will do it later.
That would have been a win on healthcare. We would have avoided this anxiety that we are in right now. We had a chance to address it, to avoid or end the shutdown. The same story; we weren't able to do that, and so we let the clock run. We wait and we wait and we settle for competing proposals, and now we are where we predicted--where I predicted we would be. We failed in both, and nobody wins from that. Nobody wins from this either politically and certainly not in real life.
As I was coming over here, I asked some of the folks that were with me--and I said: What day is Festivus Day? Festivus, for those who are not familiar, is kind of like the day of grievances, which apparently is December 23, just before Christmas. I am not here to do a preemption of Festivus and just air grievances because I don't think that is what people want us to do here.
I think they want us to try to figure out, OK, you have demonstrated what you can't do. Now, can you demonstrate what you can do? And that is where I want to put us. I refuse to accept that where we are right now, which is two failed bills, is the best that we can do.
I voted to proceed to both proposals, not because they solve the problem, not because they are great policy, but because I think they kind of represented the least bad options available to us at this eleventh hour and because I think we should be talking about it. We should be debating them, amending them, having an opportunity to do so on the floor, and seeing if we can't make some progress there. Sometimes out in the open gets us somewhere--not too often these days. But I will tell you the alternative, which is doing nothing and letting people--really letting people suffer here, I think, is worse.
So, again, today, we showed the country what we can't do, but I wanted to show that there are bipartisan votes in the Senate that are eager, that are anxious for a bipartisan compromise. And I don't think it is too late for that. It is December 11 here. The year is not over. Our session is not over. I agree that we don't have a lot of time, and we know that. But I think we can still come up with something that, again, would give people in this country comfort knowing that my premiums are not going to double and triple in the calendar year 2026.
So that is exactly what I am hoping the Senate is going to do and what I challenge every one of us to focus on before we adjourn this year.
And it is not like we are starting from scratch here. The ingredients for what we are going to need have been out there. We just need to get them all together and figure out how we are going to bake this. I think we know a lot of the work has already been done. We know the general contours of what an agreement could look like.
By my count, there are no fewer than eight plans that are out there. There are probably more than that that we can draw from. You have got the Democratic bill that we saw, which was the 3-year offering. You saw the Cassidy-Crapo effort. Senators Moreno and Collins have a proposal. I have put forward a proposal. Senator Rick Scott has, and Senator Hawley, Senator Marshall, Senator Husted. There is a lot that is out there. And so many have been speaking about this for so long now.
I have put legislation on the table, a 2-year extension of the premium tax credits, to buy us time to avoid this situation. I have also proposed ways to address it in both budget reconciliation and in my frameworks, when we were trying to figure out how we handle the shutdown. So there is not a lot of new stuff out here. We know what the component pieces are.
And it is not just in this body. Look at what is happening down the hall here.
Two--two--bipartisan proposals by Members of the House, and they are circulating for signatures so that they might be able to discharge and be able to move this. To me, I think that is really significant. You have got Members in the House that are coming together, and they are going to stand out and put their name up front on a bipartisan effort. Maybe, it is not everything that they want, but they are willing to put something out there because they believe that the American people demand and deserve a solution.
And so I am encouraged. I am really encouraged by the momentum that we are seeing coming out of the other body as a way out.
And so if you take time to look at the proposals that are out there, you can see where we need to go. You can see where there is overlap. You can see where there are areas that serve as the foundation for an agreement. I think there are so many that agree that we have got to have some extension of an enhanced premium tax credit. Maybe it is not 3 years. Maybe it is. We know it is at least 1 year. Perhaps it is 2 years.
Most agree on the need for reasonable reforms to ensure that these credits are going to go to those who need them most and to protect the taxpayers who foot the bill from the waste, fraud, and abuse, because we know that that is real. We have to address that. We have got some good measures, good ideas on what to do there. They are already written. We can plug them into a bipartisan measure.
And there is consensus for reasonable limits on who can receive the credits and an understanding that reforms need to be made, again, to reduce the fraud in the system.
And I think we can do some of that through some of the program integrity reforms and by addressing plans where the customer is not currently paying any premium whatsoever.
So, again, I acknowledge the great work that Senator Cassidy has put forward with proposing solutions that give families options here when it comes to their healthcare choices.
So here we are on December 11. We have taken the partisan votes, and now we need to move forward. We need to develop a bipartisan product based on what we do agree on. And I firmly believe--I firmly believe-- that it is in our reach, if we try, but to get there in this short period that we have in front of us, we have got to remember that none of us get to design this on our own. None of us will get exactly everything we want. The time for that is over.
We have proven that no specific plan of that nature has the kind of support that we need. So we have got to do better. We have got to do better. We can't just say: Happy holidays. Brace for next year. That is our message to you.
We need to focus on the people who are going to be hurt if we do nothing, and we need to set aside the politics and the partisanship that are preventing us from helping them.
I think there is still a consensus to be had here, and know that I stand at the ready to do everything that I can to help in that effort before we adjourn at the end of this year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I rise today to make a point clear, and that is that section 373 of this year's National Defense Authorization Act poses a serious risk to the aviation safety and should be removed.
Last night, I came to the floor to raise alarm about this provision, and today I want to explain even more clearly why it is so dangerous and why it should be removed from this bill. This section, section 373, eliminates safeguards added after the January 29 DCA collision. It weakens essential military aircraft technology standards. It enshrines these lower standards into law. And it leaves the public less safe.
The National Transportation Safety Board Chair, the head of the Agency investigating the crash, has called this provision, section 373, ``A major step backwards from where we are today and an unacceptable risk to the flying public'' and she adds ``an unthinkable dismissal'' of the 67 families who lost loved ones. The families of Flight 5342 have said section 373 does nothing meaningful to mitigate the risks that prove fatal for their loved ones.
Senators Cruz, Moran, myself, and Senator Duckworth have pointed out in a joint statement that this provision needs to be stripped from the bill. We have worked on a bipartisan solution after much of the discussion and investigation by our committee, the committee of jurisdiction, the Commerce Committee, and said that in this ROTOR Act, we should pass these provisions that would help still make aviation safer.
The families of 67 victims are facing their first holiday without their loved ones. They have spent the past year advocating for meaningful reforms that, as I mentioned, we passed out of the Commerce Committee. They deserve to see real safety reforms, not a reversal of progress made since the tragedy.
Let me explain to my colleagues how we got here. Current FAA regulations require aircraft operating in busy airspace, including military helicopters, to be equipped with what is called ADS-B Out technology. That stands for Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, meaning that the vehicle should be broadcasting out its location.
It is a critical safety technology. When transmitting, it is broadcasting
The rule specifically stated that this exemption should not be used routinely. It was meant for genuine national security situations, not everyday operations, meaning that there was an extreme case, and they needed to use it for an extreme purpose.
But the Army didn't do it for an extreme purpose. That is not how they treated the waiver. They abused the waiver. They operated 100 percent of their helicopter flights in the National Capital Region airspace without ADS Broadcast technology transmitting out--not some flights, not most flights, every single flight.
I believe the waiver never should have been granted--that in a crowded airspace, it was a ridiculous idea to think that military helicopters and commercial airlines could be within just a few hundred feet of each other. That makes no sense to me.
Then on January 29, an Army Black Hawk helicopter on a training mission collided with American Airlines Flight 5342--obviously without its broadcast technology transmitting--and 67 people were killed: 60 passengers, 4 crew members, and 3 soldiers on the helicopter. It was one of the deadliest aviation accidents in the United States in decades.
What we learned, that the helicopters--we learned later, I should say--that the helicopters didn't have its broadcast equipment broadcasting out. It wasn't even fully functioning during the flight. And we learned that this wasn't some isolated incident, that the military had been flying in the busiest airspace in the country right next to a commercial airport in these flight paths for years without this requirement--or even in their exemption, being asked for, rarely used.
Instead, they were routinely using the exemption. Why did the FAA even give them this exemption to be within a few hundred feet of commercial aircraft? Why did they believe that the military was going to only use it in extreme conditions? The NTSB investigation revealed that there had been over 15,000 close proximity incidents between commercial aircraft and helicopters near the DCA airport between October 2021 and December 2024.
The warning signs were there; the data was there; and yet nothing was done. After the crash, the FAA and the Department of Defense finally did take action, I am sure, under the scrutiny of the public outcry in the disaster. They closed Helicopter Route 4 between Hains Point and the Wilson Memorial Bridge, the route where the collision occurred.
They restricted nonessential helicopter traffic near DCA, and they required that when essential helicopter flights do operate in restricted areas, commercial arrivals and departures must stop. That was the recommendation after the crash. And critically, the FAA and DOD entered into an agreement requiring military aircraft operating in the DC airspace to broadcast via the ADS-B Out broadcast system.
This was a direct response to the crash and the urgency of the recommendations by the NTSB. But those recommendations, those are being rolled back in this National Defense Authorization Act, in section 373. Instead of strengthening the standards in this underlying bill, which is what our committee and I am pretty sure the House Committee was in agreement, wanting to make even more improvements. We wanted to ensure that the military, the Army, was in compliance to improve the air traffic safety, but instead, we have a bill that weakens it.
What does section 373 do to weaken it? Because I am not sure all my colleagues understand this. I think some people are complacent about aviation safety. There is no room for complacency. You have to understand what the language does, and you have to understand that giving them an exemption to begin with was a mistake and certainly trying to continue to get that exemption into law is also a mistake.
Before the crash, the ADS-B Out was already required by Federal regulations for aircraft operating in a busy airspace such as the National Capital Region. The 2019 exemption for ``sensitive government missions'' was supposed to be limited, but the military, as I said earlier, abused it by flying 100 percent of their helicopter flights without this transmission.
After the crash, the FAA entered into an agreement, and that is why we are so frustrated because, now, instead of strengthening the standards and closing the loophole, section 373 does the opposite. It codifies the ability to fly without ADS-B broadcast technology into Federal law.
What was a regulatory exemption that could have been fixed by the FAA, instead now is becoming a congressionally sanctioned loophole on aviation that will make our airspace less safe. It is wrong-headed, and we should get it out of this bill.
Under section 373, military helicopter flights can operate in the DC special flight rules area only with what I think some of my colleagues are thinking, this is really great. We will just make it the TCAS system. That is a standard that exists, and that is a traffic alert and collision avoidance system.
So they think, oh, that is the system we are implementing into law. One big fat problem: The TCAS doesn't work under the conditions that led to this crash. TCAS, the traffic alert and collision avoidance system, is inhibited by design below 900 feet. So during the descent to avoid--basically, you are in a cabin with a pilot that is supposed to be focused on landing. You do not have alarm bells and all the whistles and everything that distract the pilot at this critical function.
So it doesn't really operate below 900 feet. The DCA collision happened at 278 feet, while Flight 5342 was descending, so this alert system did activate, finally, 20 seconds before impact, and the crash still happened because it was too late. As Chair of the NTSB, Chair Homendy, wrote in her letter: ``A requirement limited to TCAS- compatible warning systems would not ensure adequate safety for any aircraft in the DC airspace.''
When are we going to listen to the investigators we pay to investigate why we had crashes and why people died? When are we going to listen to them and their recommendations? She continued, ``Section 373(a) would roll back those broadcast requirements to the very conditions that existed in the DC airspace at the time of the accident, by allowing military aircraft to operate without ADS-B.''
Section 373--you think, well, how could it get worse than that, now you are recreating the exact conditions of the accident. But it also includes a broad waiver authority. Any general or flag officer can waive even the most minimal TCAS requirements. This requirement that some of my colleagues put out a statement last night, going, Oh, we are good with this because it has TCAS in it. And now, we have the NTSB saying that makes no sense because it doesn't even function in the type of accident we are talking about. And now, even within the provision, it says, Oh, if you don't like that TCAS anyway, you can waive it because you have made a determination.
Why is that so important? Because the military went to the FAA and said, ``We want an exemption for very, very limited use'' and then used it 100 percent of the time. So do we think they are really telling us an accurate statement when they say, ``Oh, we might want to get rid of TCAS too''? Well, I believe they will not use TCAS, and it doesn't function in the accident requirement anyway.
The NTSB investigation has shown that the Army and other military departments do not understand the complexities of DC airspace or how to conduct a thorough safety risk assessment. And while section 373 requires the Secretary of Transportation to sign off on any waivers, Chair Homendy wrote that this provides little real protection, that the language gives the military departments broader latitude with no meaningful input from the FAA. OK, so it just means the military can do whatever they want in the commercial airspace. The aviation industry and the affected communities are the ones that are going to continue to pay the price here.
So let's be clear. The NTSB, our National Transportation Safety Board, in its own investigation, found serious maintenance failures across the
My sense is the NTSB is doing really important engineering investigative work now to find out why those altimeters were so off. This is important to know because, again, if we are going to pass a bill saying, ``Go ahead, military, operate in the commercial airspace'' and you don't even have good altimeters, it presents even more risk. When the NTSB tested three other Black Hawk helicopters over the Potomac, their barometric altimeters showed the helicopters 80 to 130 feet lower than they actually were.
So it just says that something is not working on these helicopter systems. Good investigative work--if you watch any of these shows, mid- air collisions, any of these things that document what the NTSB does-- you will find that good engineering will come up with what is the problem with these helicopters on the altimeters, and they will tell us something important that we needed to know.
But we should not be flying helicopters around close to commercial aviation space, within a few hundred feet, when we know they aren't even accurate. In a crash that happened at 278 feet, this kind of error is the difference between life and death. This is the same Army that section 373 would trust to conduct its own risk assessment and decide when it is safe to broadcast their location. Again, why are we allowing military helicopters to fly within a few hundred feet of commercial planes?
The Lilley family, who lost their son, First Officer Sam Lilley in the crash, called out these waivers directly, stating, ``The National Security waivers allowed by this draft are deeply concerning. This bill addresses that with a window dressing fix that will allow it to continue setting aside requirements with nothing more than a cursory risk assessment.''
Section 373 only applies to a training flight. It does nothing to address VIP transport operational missions or other military flights that happen around DC every day. Even if this provision were good policy, which is not, it would still leave the majority of military operations near commercial aircraft completely unaddressed.
So what we have here is a provision that rolls back the post-crash requirements that were agreed to by the FAA. It codifies a Federal loophole that the military has already used, and basically, in an environment where a crash was caused, it substitutes a technology standard that didn't prevent the crash to begin with and is not the recommendation of the Agency charged with telling us what kind of improvement should be made. And it creates a broad waiver with no meaningful oversight.
That is how we got into this situation. Let's say, for instance, there was a need for military aircraft up and down the Potomac close to--close to--the commercial flights. You would still set standards, and you would have oversight, but we had thousands of incidents of alarm bells going off, and nothing happened. Nothing happened to fix it. Nobody at the FAA, nobody at the military--nobody fixed it. And now, unfortunately, so many people have lost their loved ones.
So what is in this bill is not safety reform. It creates the appearance of reform, but it is not. That is why Senator Cruz and I and Senators Moran and Duckworth have been working on comprehensive legislation, the bipartisan ROTOR Act, and would have loved that, instead, to be in this legislation. It is bipartisan. It basically is many of the recommendations that we have already heard from the National Transportation Safety Board that would make all of us, including those who fly on these flights, safer.
The difference between our legislation and what they are talking about--well, as I mentioned, on January 29 the Black Hawk wasn't transmitting, so it was essentially invisible. We want to make sure that we know where flights are.
Our bill would set a national standard to ensure safer separation between military and commercial aircraft, not just in Washington, DC, but everywhere--San Diego, Tampa, Norfolk, anywhere where military and civilian aircraft share the skies. The Flight 5342 families agree. They have said, ``We continue to call for swift passage of the bipartisan ROTOR Act, which is a strong first step in addressing comprehensive nationwide reforms to ensure the tragedy like Flight 5342 never happens again.''
That is why we worked so hard. We are not even saying the ROTOR Act is the final piece. As I said, the NTSB will make more announcements in January in their recommendations and their findings. But I know this, we should not be passing the National Defense Authorization Act with a huge loophole that is putting the flying public at risk.
I hope our colleagues will realize this and work together to get this provision out of the legislation. I hope that you will think about the 67 families who lost their loved ones in this tragedy that was preventable. I hope that we will consider making sure that all our colleagues understand that transportation safety is not a one day on the job issue. It is a constant in which we have to be vigilant about why it is so important to follow the rules and make sure the flying public is safe.
The stakes are too high. Let's not go backward on aviation safety. Let's get this section out of the bill, and let's pass the ROTOR Act.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak on International Human Rights Day, which marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
After the atrocities of World War II, world leaders understood that large-scale abuses do not begin with mass violence. They begin when governments cut off basic rights, freedoms, and silence their own people. The declaration was an effort to build a more stable and predictable world by setting clear rules for how governments should treat their citizens.
More than seven decades later, we are again seeing election interference and political repression, attacks on journalists and civil society, war crimes committed with impunity, and a broader disregard for basic human rights. One of the clearest examples is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. To deny Ukrainians the freedom to choose their own future, Russia has bombed hospitals and kindergartens, executed civilians, and abducted Ukrainian children in an attempt to erase Ukrainian culture. And Ukraine is not the only place where the Kremlin uses coercion to control its neighbors and dictate their political direction.
Last year, the Georgian Government took unprecedented steps to silence its citizens and weaken their democratic system. It passed repressive laws. It walked away from Georgia's constitutional promise to join the Euro-Atlantic community. And it cracked down on civil society and imprisoned political opposition, moves that align squarely with Moscow's interests. Leaders in Georgian civil society--including Nino Dolidze, the recipient of the National Democratic Institute's democracy award--have worked at great personal risk to defend those basic rights. Their fight is part of a larger global struggle.
From Eastern Europe to Latin American and Southeast Asia, the pattern is the same: When authoritarian leaders feel threatened, they silence critics, shut down independent groups and dismantle the checks meant to hold them accountable. And the regimes that do this are the same ones that threaten regional stability and our own security, which is why supporting democratic movements and civil society abroad remains squarely in America's interests.
This administration's funding cuts for democracy and election observation programs move us in the wrong direction. And directives telling U.S. personnel to avoid speaking publicly about how elections are run overseas only make it harder to call out abuses when they occur. The United States should not be stepping back; we should be stepping up.
Few leaders understood these stakes more clearly than Madeleine Albright. At her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, she said, ``Democratic
I was reminded of that during a visit to Kosovo a few years ago. While standing at Secretary Albright's statue, an older man approached to thank us for her leadership and for the U.S. role in ending the war there. It was a clear reminder that when the United States stands with people fighting for basic rights, it makes a difference.
On this Human Rights Day, we should take that lesson seriously. Supporting democracies and independent civic groups makes America safer. That takes U.S. leadership. So I urge my colleagues to back steady funding, credible election observation, and the resolve to call out abuses when they occur.
Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge the leadership of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual head of more than 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. As the 269th direct successor to the Apostle Andrew and the 270th Ecumenical Patriarch, he represents a centuries-old tradition of faith, service, and moral guidance that has shaped communities around the globe.
His All-Holiness recently visited the United States, where he continued a tradition of engagement with U.S. leaders. While in Washington, DC, he participated in meetings with bipartisan congressional leaders in the U.S. Capitol, reinforcing the long- standing friendship between our country and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
While in the United States, His All-Holiness was honored with the Templeton Prize, joining a select group of global figures recognized for their spiritual vision and commitment to faith and leadership. His presence in our country highlighted both the continuity of Orthodox Christianity and the enduring need for moral and spiritual leadership in the modern world.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize George Copadis for his decades of public service and advocacy for Granite Staters. George has been a giant in New Hampshire's State government for an impressive 21 years, and he has been a magnetic local leader in the city of Manchester for even longer. He leaves a legacy of steady management, consensus-building, and genuine care for his neighbors and constituents.
George has firm roots in New Hampshire. He was born and raised in Manchester, attended college at the University of New Hampshire, and remains a lifelong resident of the Granite State. In 2004, George stepped away from a successful career to accept an appointment as the commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Labor by Governor Craig Benson. He oversaw a State agency that ensured compliance with New Hampshire's labor laws and encouraged workplaces to respect the dignity and interests of their employees. George served in this position for 8 years under two Governors of two different political parties.
In July of 2012, George became the interim commissioner of New Hampshire Employment Security. Governor John Lynch remarked that George's dependable leadership would bring ``a calming effect,'' and his initial 6-month appointment has blossomed into 13 years as commissioner of an important State agency for job-seekers and employers. Individuals seeking unemployment compensation, career- related services, and labor market information look to New Hampshire Employment Security, often in times of great need. George and his team work diligently and swiftly to connect these people to helpful resources.
As commissioner of New Hampshire Employment Security, George served under four Governors from both political parties. His tenure is marked by stability and fulfillment of the agency's critical mission, yet it was not without its challenges. George describes the COVID-19 pandemic as the most demanding stretch of his career. Working 7 days a week around the clock, George and his team managed the awarding of unemployment benefits that--at the height of the public health emergency--exceeded $2 billion to 175,000 individuals. Their efforts provided hope in a time of great uncertainty for many Granite State families.
In addition to his service in State government, George is well known throughout New Hampshire for his involvement with several nonprofits and local groups. He has given his time as a board member of the Manchester Housing and Redevelopment Authority for 33 years, and he has also volunteered for many United Way Charitable Campaigns. Most notably, George is famous for his connection to St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral in his hometown of Manchester. He has served on its board for 39 years and can always be found at its community events, especially the church's popular annual GLENDI Festival. Ever proud of his Greek heritage, George has a reputation for bringing baklava to big meetings and gatherings.
I have known George for decades. As a policymaker, I have always welcomed his perspective and advice on ways we can strengthen New Hampshire's economy and provide employers with the workforce they need to grow and thrive. But more importantly, I am proud to call him a friend.
George's decades of public service and community involvement were celebrated this past month, and friends, family, and colleagues have joined together to reflect on his many achievements. Having spent most of his life as a local leader in his beloved hometown, George will undoubtedly continue to serve his friends and neighbors with care and compassion in meaningful ways. I join them in spirit for this celebration of George, and I once again thank him for all he has done for our Granite State.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Office of Fusion Act. This bipartisan piece of legislation would establish an Office of Fusion at the Department of Energy to advance fusion energy, in partnership with the private sector, to accelerate research, development, demonstration, deployment, and market adoption of fusion technologies.
Fusion has the potential to harness the power of the Sun--to manufacture near limitless energy for our homes, our economy, and our future. It is also a carbon-free source of power that can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and save the planet. My home State of California is home to more fusion companies than any other country in the world, and it is the energy of the future.
The Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California has achieved ignition over five times, which highlights the exciting progress and potential of these technologies. We need to capitalize on this momentum to ensure that the United States remains the leader in fusion energy. This office will ensure that there are concentrated efforts to continue advancing this energy source.
As we have heard this administration talk about repeatedly, energy dominance is one of their top priorities. To achieve this goal, we need to continue investing in fusion technologies to ensure that we can scale up these technologies to reach commercialization.
I want to thank my good friend and colleague Senator Cornyn for leading this effort with me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this necessary piece of legislation.
S. 3444. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service at 1300 East Northwest Highway in Palatine, Illinois, as the ``Bernie Bluestein Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
S. 3461. A bill to improve the identification and support of children and families who experience trauma; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
``PART PP--CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE AND ADDICTION INITIATIVE
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Office of Fusion Act. This bipartisan piece of legislation would establish an Office of Fusion at the Department of Energy to advance fusion energy, in partnership with the private sector, to accelerate research, development, demonstration, deployment, and market adoption of fusion technologies.
Fusion has the potential to harness the power of the Sun--to manufacture near limitless energy for our homes, our economy, and our future. It is also a carbon-free source of power that can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and save the planet. My home State of California is home to more fusion companies than any other country in the world, and it is the energy of the future.
The Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California has achieved ignition over five times, which highlights the exciting progress and potential of these technologies. We need to capitalize on this momentum to ensure that the United States remains the leader in fusion energy. This office will ensure that there are concentrated efforts to continue advancing this energy source.
As we have heard this administration talk about repeatedly, energy dominance is one of their top priorities. To achieve this goal, we need to continue investing in fusion technologies to ensure that we can scale up these technologies to reach commercialization.
I want to thank my good friend and colleague Senator Cornyn for leading this effort with me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this necessary piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 11, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 11, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 11, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 11, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 11, 2025, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.
The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 11, 2025, at 11 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my intern Rachel Shaw for the month of December 2025 in the 119th Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 177, H.R. 165; Calendar No. 138, S. 390; Calendar No. 174, S. 620; Calendar No. 186, S. 621; Calendar No. 187, S. 622; Calendar No. 175, S. 642; Calendar No. 76, S. 719; Calendar No. 148, S. 723; Calendar No. 261, S. 546; Calendar No. 260, S. 240; Calendar No. 262, S. 640; and Calendar No. 291, H.R. 504.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc.
On page S8684, December 11, 2025, third column, the following appears: There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc, which had been reported from the Committee on Indian Affairs.
The online Record has been corrected to read: There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bills en bloc.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported amendments, where applicable, be considered and agreed to; that the Murkowski-Schatz amendment at the desk to Calendar No. 262, S. 640, be agreed to; that the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bills considered and passed en bloc are as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 232, S. 1744.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be agreed to; 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1744), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 254, S. 766.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 766) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1491 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 1491) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 277, S. 1591.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
``Subchapter VII--Acquisition Organization, Cost Assessment, and
``subchapter vii--acquisition organization, cost assessment, and
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be agreed to; 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1591), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read a third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 610) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions: S. Res. 544 and S. Res. 545.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolutions were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline with respect to first-degree amendments to S. 1071 be at 4 p.m. on Monday, December 15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, December 15; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion with respect to the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1071 ripen at 5:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.