Michael Bennet

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Thank you, Madam President. May I be recognized after Senator Merkley, Madam President?

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 44, on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6644, the Housing for the 21st Century Act. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yes.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, for many months, the Trump administration has unleashed a campaign of fear across American cities, deploying thousands of immigration agents onto our streets and into our neighborhoods in an effort to terrorize and punish communities. In Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, and most recently Minneapolis, we have watched masked Federal agents in unmarked cars snatch people from the street, destroy private property, and leave others bloodied on the side of the road. We have witnessed an approach to internal immigration enforcement that no President in our history has pursued, that no President would ever have conceived because of how fundamentally it violates our principles and the rule of law. We have witnessed children separated from their parents--a 5-year-old detained by armed agents in Minnesota--people pulled from their cars, their engines still running. All us have read reports of people grabbed off the sidewalk and abandoned hours later, miles away. Every step along the way, Donald Trump's immigration troops have escalated tension on our streets with total disregard for the rule of law, basic safety, and their own accountability. These events would be terrible enough, but even as communities across the country have struggled to pick up the pieces left in their wake, we have been forced to contend with another injustice: an administration that has tried to convince us time and time again that what we have seen with our own eyes is not the truth, that somehow the opposite has taken place, that reports and testimony contradicting the administration's position are simply political propaganda. Over and over again, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and others in the administration have lied to the American people and to Congress about what we are all seeing in plain sight. Now they are lying to justify the murder of Alex Pretti. Right after the shooting of Alex Pretti in the street, Noem went on national television and told us that Alex was ``brandishing'' a firearm, ``impeding'' the law enforcement officers and attacking them, and that he acted ``violently'' or ``reacted violently'' when officers attempted to disarm him. She insisted that ``an agent fired defensive shots'' and that it appeared that this was ``a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement.'' Stephen Miller, who works at the White House, called Alex a domestic terrorist and a would-be assassin. Vice President JD Vance amplified these statements. Gregory Bovino, a senior Border Patrol official who is serving as ``commander at large,'' maintained that Alex had intended to ``massacre'' law enforcement agents. At a press conference, Bovino turned the facts completely upside down, insisting that the victims of Saturday's violence were the Border Patrol agents that were there. Bovino, by the way, has served as the face of the administration's operations as they have swept through America's cities--in Chicago, in Charlotte, in New Orleans and then Minneapolis. The American people deserve to know the truth, and Alex Pretti and his family deserve to have the truth told about him and what he did. Thanks to a number of courageous bystanders at the scene, we know what happened that day, and we know that everything that Noem and Miller and others have said has been lies. The truth is that Alex put himself between Federal agents and a woman they were shoving in the street. He had been filming Border Patrol agents detaining someone else on the side of the road when he went to help this woman. The officers responded by pepper- spraying him and wrestling him to the ground, where he was quickly surrounded by a group of seven agents. They struck him repeatedly with the pepper spray canister while he lay in the street. One officer took away his gun--a gun that had remained holstered and that Alex was legally allowed to carry. Then, disarmed and incapacitated, they shot him in his back. They shot him at least 10 times within 5 seconds. Alex Pretti was killed by his own government, and then his government immediately began to lie about him and what had happened. He did not attack the agents. He did not threaten them. And at no point did he pull a gun. In the video of that horrific scene, it is clear that an agent disarmed him before any shots were fired. Multiple agents held him to the ground. Three of them beat him. No reasonable person would have believed he posed any threat to the agents or anyone else at the scene, but the agents still shot him. They shot him 10 times. (Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.) In the days since his murder, we have learned a lot more about Alex from those who knew him and loved him. Alex was a dedicated ICU nurse at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Minneapolis. His colleagues described him there as helpful and kind and that he was uniquely capable of handling things with integrity and with grace. His high school classmates remember him as a role model. They recalled him being a really good friend and a really good man. Alex loved his country, and, like many of us, he was deeply concerned about the Trump administration's actions and the devastating effects they are having on our democracy. It is true that he had very strong feelings about the presence of ICE on his city streets, but the day he was killed, Alex was exercising his First Amendment rights to peacefully protest and document the actions of Federal agents as they threatened his community. Alex's parents, Michael and Susan, live in Colorado. They want the world to know the truth about what happened that day and the truth about the kind of person their son really was. They told the world that Alex wanted to make a difference in the world. His patients and colleagues, friends and family testified to the fact that he did, and it is another tragedy that he will no longer be able to continue to do so. But Alex's murder is only the most recent outrage we have been subjected to by a reckless and out-of-control DHS. On January 7, Federal agents shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis. Renee was a mother of three and a native of Colorado Springs. The next day, Federal agents shot and wounded two people in Portland. A week later, Federal agents shot and wounded another man, again, in Minneapolis. It is worth remembering that these are just a few of the instances that have occurred in broad daylight and in public spaces, where bystanders have been there to witness these brutal activities firsthand and managed to capture video of what happened. But if this is what is happening out in the open, it is hard to imagine what is happening behind closed doors. Last year, 32 people died in ICE custody. That is the most in over 20 years. Given the total lack of transparency and accountability that we have seen from ICE, we can't be sure what has happened to these people. There have been reports about sexual abuse of detainees. There are disputed facts over deaths that occurred in ICE custody. People in ICE facilities have reportedly been forced to ration food. They often go days or weeks without their prescription medicines or access to medical care. Overcrowded detention facilities leave the lights on 24-7, and families report extreme violence and intimidation by guards. These stories are consistent for people held in detention across the country, including in the detention facility in Aurora, CO. But the administration has lied about all of them. President Trump has claimed that Renee Good was a ``professional agitator,'' that she was ``very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE officer.'' Noem described Good's efforts to leave the scene peacefully as ``an act of domestic terrorism.'' Her Department issued a statement saying that ``violent'' rioter had ``weaponized her vehicle.'' In October, Noem and her Department lied when she said no U.S. citizens had been arrested, detained, or deported. In November, Federal Judge Sara Ellis described Gregory Bovino as ``evasive,'' ``not credible,'' and declared that he was ``outright lying'' when questioned under oath. A consistent pattern of lies corrodes American's faith in our government, which is already stretched dangerously thin. It strikes at the core of our constitutional system, which requires at least some basic level, some basic fidelity to facts in the conduct of our public affairs and our public discourse. When the Secretary of Homeland Security appears on television to insist repeatedly on her preferred version of events, she is not just offering another lie that must be rebutted; she is insisting that there could never be a truth that actually mattered to the American people or to our sense of public safety or to our exercise in self-government. And that is what is at stake here. If we allow this to continue, we risk falling into a degraded version of political debate when there are so many lies and so many contested facts, that the American people regard any claim with exhausted cynicism and suspicion. And if we go too far down that path--and we are headed a long way down it right now--the only guaranteed outcome will be greater contempt felt by Americans for their government and for the political process. They will withdraw from public life, and the possibility for genuine political disagreement--in other words, a debate over what to do in the face of facts, rather than over the facts themselves, or unwilling to even have a discussion about it because of our permanent partisan division--will be erased. Every one of us has a responsibility at a moment like this, and we know from American history that, in some ways, the most significant resistance in moments like this comes from the public itself. It comes from the people of this country. I could see that on the steps and the grounds of the State capitol in Colorado, last weekend, when thousands of Coloradans were there to rally, not just for themselves but for their fellow citizens in Minnesota and across our country. I think, when times are tough, we often have a tendency to think that we are living in uniquely bad times. But I believe that way of thinking almost always does a disservice to the people who have come before us, who took on even tougher battles with longer odds and who, while they were doing that and because they were doing that, bequeathed to us their own legacy of resistance and the possibility of change, no matter how hard it seemed. And I think we should look to those battles for inspiration in our time. It is important for us to tell our kids about those battles, to make sure they understood what those fights actually looked like and how hopeless, at times, those fights seemed to the people that were waging them. When I was growing up--and I know this is true for many of my colleagues who are here--the moral character of this country was defined by the civil rights movement, the struggle against segregation, and the fight for equality. This fight, this battle--the effort to demolish centuries of legalized discrimination and disenfranchisement-- never was going to be easy, and many believed that it was nearly impossible. And there were others who believed that it shouldn't have been fought to begin with. And, I would say, to this day, we have a long, long way to go. The structure of Jim Crow, of the poll tax, of separate and worse schoolrooms and hospital wards and lunch counters had been built up over generations. State laws had established these exclusionary practices. State officials enforced them, and State courts upheld them. There was no guarantee that they would ever come crashing down, but they did because the leaders of the civil rights movement and ordinary citizens in the streets and in America's pulpits, and reporters and journalists sent their reports on the demonstrations. And the conditions of real life in the South of this country made it impossible to ignore the facts. It was harder then than it is in our own time just to turn the channel and imagine that that alternate reality didn't actually exist. For people in that country, with the broadcasters--ABC and CBS and NBC--it was impossible for the public to ignore what was right before their eyes. The success of that generation of brave Americans was achieved because they forced a broad swath of this country, a majority of this country, to finally see what they would have preferred to be blind to-- the reality of segregation and the subordination of their fellow citizens under law. It is a story of moral reckoning and of citizen action. It is a story of street protests and police brutality and political vacillation, but it is also a story of American renewal, of our ability to author our own history, to continue the endless founding and refounding of this country as generations of Americans lay claim to it and shape it. I don't believe that we have lost that ability. I don't believe that we have lost that ambition. I don't believe that people in Colorado and Minnesota and all across this country have given up on the promise offered by America, a promise that can only be given and kept to each other. As Alex Pretti said himself when honoring a veteran who died in his care, ``today we remember that freedom is not free. We have to work at it, nurture it, protect it, and even sacrifice for it. In the end, it is also not enough for there to be just public expressions of disapproval. We actually have to change the laws. Part of our job here as Senators is to uphold the ideals that Alex and so many others in Minnesota and across Colorado and across the country believe in and are fighting for. And it is our job here in the Senate to provide a check on an Executive that our Founders knew was always susceptible to the temptations of unlimited power. That was their concern about a unitary Executive, the President of the United States. And this week we have an opportunity to be that check. We have an opportunity to change the law. The Senate is considering a number of bills to fund the government, including one that provides over $10 billion to the varied Departments responsible for the murder of Alex Pretti and the chaos we are seeing in communities across the country. It would be unconscionable for us to pass this bill without amending how ICE or the Border Patrol operate at all. In fact, we should use this as an opportunity to do it. What better opportunity will there be? As written, the Homeland appropriations bill provides no real accountability, no oversight, no guardrails or transparency. It offers no guarantee at all that what happened to Alex Pretti won't happen again. That is all the more absurd because Republicans gave the Department of Homeland Security an additional $190 billion on top of the regular annual appropriations. Think about that--190 billion additional dollars on top of the annual appropriations last year as part of their Big Beautiful Bill that they passed on a partisan vote. And this funding, I can assure you, came with no accountability or oversight at all. In the midst of all this, it would be a profound abdication of our responsibility as Senators to entertain the idea of providing more funding to the Department unless serious reforms are put in place. I think these reforms are common sense that you would want for any law enforcement agency operating in America but especially when it comes to a Federal Agency operating in some sense now as the President's internal army. I think the least we could ask is that children are no longer detained or stripped from their families. Who wants to come to this floor and debate the opposite of that point? Immigration officers should take off their masks and provide clear identification. There is no doubt in my mind that the minute we get through this fraught political moment in America, there will be a broad consensus-- in fact, I think there is one now--that ICE shouldn't be separating children from their families; that law enforcement agents shouldn't be wearing masks; that they should use body cameras consistently with any immigration enforcement activities; that ICE stay away from sensitive areas like schools and hospitals and places of worship; and, consistent with our responsibility, our duty to provide a check, to provide our own oversight, that Members of Congress have full access to immigration detention facilities. Those are reforms that do not today define the way ICE does its work--they do define the way a lot of our local law enforcement does its work--but I think they reflect a massive consensus in the country about what would fix the challenges we are facing. It would at least be a basic start in the right direction. In my view--you might disagree, but in my view, President Trump would be doing himself and the country a favor if he removed Kristi Noem from her position and prevented her from doing any more harm to this country and to our communities and if he removed DHS agents from Minnesota and other cities across our country. I would say to all of my colleagues here, Republicans and Democrats, that we cannot simply accept a promise of change or action or reform from this administration, which has spent months lying to Congress and the American people with a straight face. There is no world where we can sit back and assume that the President and his team are going to be persuaded to do anything--anything--unless we write it into law. Even then, we have no guarantee, of course, that this administration won't just break the law as soon as it is written. That has been our experience in Colorado. But at least putting this into statute would be a better pathway for holding Noem and Miller and others accountable for the bloodshed and chaos we are seeing in our streets. After that, I think we could have serious conversations about passing a funding bill. Until then, we can't allow this legislation to go forward. Our children and future generations have a reasonable expectation that their elected officials will do everything in their power to keep them safe and to provide the plain facts as they are. As legislators, it is our responsibility to stand up to an executive branch that is unleashing mayhem in our streets and gunning down American citizens while insisting that the public should not believe what they have seen and what they have heard or that it is unpatriotic all of a sudden to disagree with the President's version of events. We have seen this story before. There is nothing new under the Sun. We know the dark path this can lead us down. But we have also seen the courage that was demonstrated by the generations of Americans who have come before us, who have disagreed in this Chamber, who have disagreed with each other, but who ultimately have rejected injustice, particularly when it was directed from the highest levels of government. One of these people was a hero of mine, it won't surprise anybody here to know, and it was Colorado's former Governor Ralph Carr, who spoke out against Japanese internment when most politicians in the West and in this country were staying silent. Addressing a crowd one day on the Eastern Plains of Colorado, Governor Carr said: I am talking to . . . all American people whether their status be white, brown, or black . . . when I say that if a majority may deprive a minority of their freedom, contrary to the terms of the Constitution today, then you as a minority may be subjected to the same ill-will of the majority tomorrow. What happened to Alex Pretti and the lies that followed were an assault on every one of us, on all of our children, on our sense of dignity and our innate understanding of right and wrong. Now is the time for my colleagues to come together and demand that we reassert these principles and demand the return of safety and security and sanity to our government rather than the chaos and destruction we have recently seen. It is what all Americans expect, and it is what our country deserves. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I will start with a constituent from Canon City. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the administration's recent plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NCAR. NCAR is a cornerstone of American scientific leadership and public safety. Since 1960, it has provided the essential infrastructure, including super computers, research, aircraft, and sophisticated modeling that protects American lives and our economy every single day. I urge you to push back against the move for the following reasons: public safety. NCAR's research is vital for predicting extreme weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. Dismantling this center puts our emergency response capabilities at risk; aviation and transportation: NCAR technology is used at a major hub like Denver International Airport to manage snow and ice, and their wind shear detection systems are crucial for aviation safety; economic security: from agriculture to energy, the private sector relies on NCAR's open source models to manage risk and maintain a competitive advantage; national defense: NCAR collaborates with the Department of Defense to develop tools that ensure our military can operate safely in any environment. Stripping NCAR of its funding or breaking up its integrated labs will leave our Nation behind in the atmospheric threats of the 21st century. Please support the continued funding and operation of NCAR and its headquarters at the Mesa Laboratory. From a constituent in Denver: I am writing as a concerned Coloradan to urge you to stand up for the National Center for Atmospheric Research and oppose any plans to dismantle or significantly weaken the institution. NCAR is not only a world-class scientific organization; it is a major economic asset to Colorado and to the United States. Its presence strengthens our State's economy. It supports high-quality jobs, attracts private investment, and reinforces America's global leadership in science, technology, and national security. NCAR's direct economic value to Colorado is substantial. The center employs hundreds of highly skilled scientists, engineers, IT professionals, and support staff, many of whom live and raise families and pay taxes here in Colorado. These are stable, high-paying jobs that cannot be easily replaced. They won't be easily replaced. In addition, NCAR's operations support local contractors, suppliers, and small businesses across the Front Range, creating a multiplier effect that benefits the broader regional economy. NCAR is also a powerful driver of innovation and private-sector growth. Its research underpins advances in aviation safety, agriculture, water management, energy production, wildfire forecasting, and weather risk modeling--industries that collectively represent billions of dollars in economic activity. Private companies rely on NCAR's development tools and data to improve efficiency, reduce losses, and plan investments. The weakening of NCAR would not reduce regulation or bureaucracy; it would reduce the high-quality information that businesses need to compete. From a national perspective, NCAR strengthens U.S. security and resilience. Accurate weather and climate forecasting is essential for military readiness, disaster preparedness, infrastructure planning, and supply chain resiliency. These capabilities help save lives and taxpayer dollars by reducing the costs of natural disasters and improving long-term planning. Other nations are aggressively investing in atmosphere, science. Dismantling NCAR would cede leadership to global competitors at a time when American technological dominance is increasingly challenged. Finally, NCAR represents an excellent return on taxpayer investment. Its budget is modest relative to the economic losses it helps to prevent and the innovation it enables. Cutting or dismantling NCAR may appear to save money in the short term--I doubt very much anybody really believes it--but the long-term costs to businesses, farmers, municipalities, insurers, and emergency responders would be far greater. Colorado has been a leader in science, innovation, and pragmatic problem-solving, and NCAR is a cornerstone of that legacy. I respectfully ask for you to stand up for Colorado jobs, American competitiveness, and fiscally responsible governance by opposing efforts to dismantle or weaken the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Thank you for your service to our State and for considering the economic and strategic importance to our State. From Boulder: Thank you for supporting science and specifically for supporting NCAR. I don't need to tell you how important NCAR's work is for the safety of our Nation. This move against NCAR serves no valid purpose. It appears merely punitive as are many of the moves that the Trump administration has made against our State. I work in research at a university. We work closely with NOAA and with NCAR. The last shutdown was stressful to our researchers and our institutions, but if another shutdown were to happen in order to save institutions like NCAR from arbitrary posturing and governance, I know that our research and community would support that cause. Stand strong, Senator. We support you. And here is a letter from an NCAR institutional stakeholder: We write to express our strong support for continued-- This is from, I think, the Governors: Jared Polis, Josh Green, Spencer Cox, Bob Ferguson, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Gavin Newsom, and Katie Hobbs--Democrats and Republicans. We write to express our strong support for continued Federal funding for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NCAR, and to underscore its importance to States all across the Nation. Governors rely on NCAR's research and modeling and data infrastructure to help protect lives, strengthen regional and national economies, and improve preparedness for increasingly complex environmental challenges. NCAR's work directly informs decision making at the State and local level, supporting emergency management, infrastructure planning, and long-term resilience. We agree with your administration's fiscal year 2026 National Science Foundation budget request to Congress that NCAR is a critical national research and infrastructure asset. As the budget request notes, NCAR is an NSF-sponsored, federally funded research and development center that integrates advanced observational facilities, widely used community weather and climate models, and high-performance computing. Together, these capabilities provide foundational tools used by Federal Agencies, the military, State and local governments, universities, and the private sector. For our States, NCAR's work delivers direct and practical value. By the way, I have not found a single person on this floor who doesn't agree with what these Governors have to say, who hasn't said that NCAR is a vital resource to their State, that their work delivers direct and practical value. In wildfire-prone regions, NCAR research improves understanding of fire behavior, smoke transport, and extreme weather conditions that exacerbate fire risk, supporting more effective mitigation and response and recovery efforts. Governors depend on these insights to inform emergency management decisions and to protect communities' infrastructure and public lands. Where else are we going to get this data and information? NCAR's modeling and forecasting capabilities are also essential to agriculture and to water management across the West. Seasonal and subseasonal forecasts help producers plan for droughts, floods, and shifting precipitation patterns, while supporting more efficient use of scarce water resources. These tools are increasingly important as our States work to sustain agricultural productivity, rural economies, and food security amid growing variability. I can't find a single person on this floor who would disagree with what the Governors have said. In addition, NCAR's capabilities support national defense and homeland security priorities. Accurate, timely weather and Earth system information is critical for military operations, forest protection, aviation safety, and infrastructure resilience. NCAR's high-performance computing and data integration capacity strengthens situational awareness and operational readiness across air, land, and maritime domains. The Governors continued: Tourism and outdoor recreation, cornerstones of many of our economies, also benefit from improved forecasting and hazard preparedness. Reliable weather and environmental information helps protect visitors, supports local businesses, and reduces disruption from extreme events, reinforcing economic stability in communities that depend on these sectors-- Which is to say, virtually every community in the American West. We [these Governors] respectfully urge your administration to continue supporting NCAR, consistent with your 2026 fiscal year budget request, and to work with Congress to ensure stable funding for its core capabilities. Continued investment will allow NCAR to deliver high-value research and service that strengthens public safety, economic resilience, and preparedness all across the Nation. Thank you for your leadership and your continued partnership with the Nation's Governors. These Governors sign on. Here is Tony Busalacchi, who is the president of UCAR, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the operator of NCAR. Busalacchi--I apologize if I butchered that name. NSF NCAR's research is crucial for building American prosperity by protecting lives and properties, supporting the economy, and strengthening national security. Any plan to dismantle NSF NCAR would set back our Nation's ability to predict, prepare for, and respond to severe weather and other natural disasters. I have an open letter here from major scientific societies--from the American Meteorological Society, the Alliance for Data Science and AI. I won't read the rest, Mr. President. The letter says: The United States of America needs the National Center for Atmospheric Research. On behalf of the scientific societies we represent, we write to express our strong support of NCAR and the full breadth of scientific research undertaken by the scientists at NCAR. The benefits of NCAR to the United States and the world are enormous. Since its inception in 1960, NCAR has made groundbreaking advances in weather, water, and climate science. Working with partners within the United States, as well as across the world, NCAR scientists have provided crucial insights on severe storms, flash floods, drought, air quality, wildfire, climate, and weather predictions, to name just a few key contributions. These discoveries improve early warnings and weather forecasts, ensure enhanced transportation safety by air, sea, and ground, and reverse the adverse impacts of hazards. Crucially, they save lives and make America safer! Recently, the White House announced plans to dismantle it. Sending various parts of NCAR to other cities will isolate expertise and reduce the synergies and enhanced productivity that results when people work together. NCAR is an incredible resource, and losing it would hurt the economic health of the Nation and the safety of its people. A better option would be to work to maintain and strengthen NCAR, including through enhanced cooperation with Federal science Agencies, academic institutions, and private sector researchers. Science improves lives and drives economic prosperity. ``Science improves lives and drives economic prosperity,'' and we used to care around here whether we were the leader among nations in that. Scientific innovation promotes public safety, enables new businesses, and helps us thrive in a competitive global marketplace. The United States has long been a world leader-- I would say the world leader-- in all science, including the science of environmental prediction. The Nation's strong support of science over the past century is a foundation of our success. A strong NCAR will lead to further forecast improvements that enhance our national well-being. We stand ready to work with the administration and leaders in Congress to ensure that U.S. scientific preparedness, including with respect to environmental prediction, remains second to none. And Colorado does as well. Finally, from Arvada: Thank you for defending NCAR and holding up the budget unless full funding is included. As you know, parts of the State are out of power right now due to high winds and dry, warm conditions that put us at fire risk. We need to continue to study climate and weather to fight climate change but also to predict and respond to weather emergencies. Shutting down NCAR will be bad for everyone in the country. Thank you, and please continue to fight for our State and the environment. I could not have said it better myself. Shutting down NCAR will be bad for everybody in the country, and that is a fact. And the people there obviously don't deserve it. And we also need to set a standard for what we expect out of the leadership in the White House, which is that they are going to actually serve everybody in the country, whether they voted for them or not. What is happening to Colorado today could happen to your State tomorrow. (Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.) We also lost, to the President's first veto of his second term, the Arkansas Valley Conduit. That is a pipeline that I have been working on since the day I got here. It is the very first piece of legislation that I wrote. It was an effort to try to keep a promise that had been made to Colorado in 1960 by Jack Kennedy, who went out to Pueblo and said to the people there, to the farmers and ranchers--mostly Republicans then, in 1960, and still mostly Republicans today. That doesn't matter, but I just want to set the scene for what we are dealing with here, which is a group of people that have fought and fought and fought, generation after generation after generation, to supply their farming families, their ranching families with clean water that the United States, the richest country in the world, promised them many, many years ago. And I have a constituent from Pueblo who wrote in. The letter says: I am writing as a deeply disappointed, concerned, and frankly angry constituent regarding President Trump's veto of the finishing of the Arkansas Valley Conduit. This legislation passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate, an increasingly rare example of true bipartisan agreement, because it addressed a fundamental responsibility of government: providing clean, safe drinking water to America. Communities across Colorado's eastern plains, between Pueblo and Lamar, have waited too long for this project to be completed. The AVC is not political theater. It is a public health necessity. Using access to clean water as a bargaining chip for punishment against a State is unacceptable. Using access to clean water as a bargaining chip for punishment against a State is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. My constituent from Pueblo writes: The President is obligated to represent and serve all Americans, regardless of party, State, or political disagreements. This action falls short of that standard and undermines trust in our democratic institution. I could not agree with that more. I urge you to do the right thing for the people of Colorado by supporting and voting to override this veto. Clean drinking water should never be held hostage to partisan grievances or personal vendettas. Congress spoke clearly and unanimously once. Now it must stand by that decision. Please let me know what actions you will take to ensure this vital project moves forward and that the needs of Coloradoans are placed above political calculation. Here is a letter in support of the conduit from the Otero County Commission: Your public statements of opposition to President Trump's veto to finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act are greatly appreciated by those of us who have long supported this project to ensure that residents in rural Southeastern Colorado have access to a safe drinking water supply. The challenges we face with naturally occurring contaminants in groundwater are precisely why the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act exists. It is imperative that we work together to overturn this decision. We stand ready to assist you in any effort to override the veto or pursue an alternative path to enact this strongly supported legislation. It is unanimously supported legislation. The conduit can't be viewed as a mere amenity or a frivolous investment. It is the most effective way to deliver safe drinking water to 50,000 people without creating harmful side effects that are associated with other treatment processes like reverse osmosis. This is a public health issue, and shared investments by Federal, State, and local governments are critical to addressing it. Indeed, H.R. 131 highlights the significant non-Federal investment-- 35 percent of the total cost--to say nothing of the blood, sweat, and tears that generations of South Coloradans in Southeastern Colorado have been willing to exert in this cause in their partnership with Federal Agencies to get this project built. This is a classic case of Americans doing the work for the next generation of Americans and the generation after that--the county commissioners in Otero County who came and lived and died long before the ones that are here writing in about this right now without ever seeing their dream for clean water for their families or their communities realized in the richest country in the world. We are this close to having it done, and it was canceled out of spite. In addition to pointing out the local share that the communities--and by the way, these are tiny farming communities. Every dollar they spend on a project like this is a hard dollar for them to spend, but they know why it is so important. This bill--the bill that we passed unanimously, which the President vetoed--this bill adjusts the interest rate and extends the repayment period while also providing an option for economic hardship consideration, which is vital given the challenging economic conditions of our region. The longstanding bipartisan support-- The commissioners continued-- for the Arkansas Valley Conduit speaks volumes about its clear purpose: a safe--safe--clean drinking water supply. Together, we must fight this attempt to stop the project and diminish its critical importance. We respectfully ask you to use all your tools available to overturn the decision and ensure the enactment of H.R. 131. Thank you for your leadership and commitment to the health and wellbeing of our Southeastern Colorado community. I have got one last letter that I am going to read from the Pueblo County commissioners: Thank you for your public statements opposing President Trump's veto to finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act. Your leadership on this issue is deeply appreciated by the communities of Southeastern Colorado who have worked for decades to secure a safe and reliable drinking water supply. As an elected body representing residents of Pueblo County, we see firsthand the challenges posed by naturally occurring groundwater contaminants. These conditions are precisely why the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act exists and why Federal partnership is essential. Access to clean drinking water is not optional; it is a fundamental public health responsibility. It is critical that we work together to overturn this veto or pursue an alternative path to enactment. We stand ready to assist in any effort necessary to ensure this project moves forward. The Arkansas Valley Conduit should not be characterized as discretionary or a nonessential investment. It is the most effective and sustainable way to deliver drinking water to approximately 50,000 people without the long-term complications and unintended consequences associated with other treatment methods. H.R. 131 appropriately recognizes the significant commitment already made at the local and at the State level with other non-Federal partners covering approximately 35 percent of the total cost. The bill's modest adjustments to the interest rate and repayment period, along with provisions for economic hardship, are especially important given the economic realities facing rural Southeast Colorado. I can see that my colleague from Colorado has arrived at the floor, which means that I am going to have to wind up in a minute. Before I finish, I just had a few more closing remarks, and then I will turn it over to my friend. Political decisions in America are not supposed to be made this way. I know they are sometimes in other countries. I know there are many countries around the world where there is corruption, and the way decisions are made is, might makes right, and whoever happens to get elected to a certain term--that person gets to reward their friends and punish their enemies. I can guarantee you that every one of those places has a less successful economy than the United States of America. Our economy is based on the rule of law, not might makes right. Our economy is based on the idea that the citizens we represent and their futures are far more important than the political scorekeeping that any President or any chief executive officer should maintain. This is not, I have to say, what the American Government is supposed to look like or what the American Government has ever looked like. Making these kinds of partisan decisions, like the one that is underlined, the cancellation of the Arkansas Valley Conduit or NCAR or the other hundreds of millions of dollars that are being taken away from poor families in Colorado who are just trying to raise their children, who are now not going to have access to food or access to schooling--which, by the way, just for political reasons, this strikes at the heart of the constitutional system that was envisioned by our Founders. That is not an exaggeration. The men who framed our founding document were raised in and were some of the greatest exponents of the scientific revolution and the fundamental shift in human thought and reason that we now call the enlightenment. That tradition prioritized--and by the way, they weren't just politicians; many of them were scientists themselves. That tradition prioritized freedom of thought and considered debate. It held that truth was best drawn out from the contrast of opposing views and beliefs or disagreements. The Founders understood that this philosophy could only reach its full potential within the framework of a constitutional republic. It had never existed before anywhere. They drew up the Bill of Rights, with its freedom of speech and its freedom of press, in order to protect that ability to face each other in the public square with our disagreements, and they ingrained their belief in the overwhelming power of reason to discern truth from falsehood and science from superstition in the original text of our Constitution. In article I, section 8, they charged Congress with the responsibility to ``fix the Standards of Weights and Measures'' and provide for policies that ``promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.'' The Founders understood how fundamental these responsibilities were to the country they hoped to create. These directives are in the very same section as the power to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money, and to declare war. NCAR is a modern embodiment of the Founders' intent--the careful and objective collection of data to inform public policy and political debate free from restriction or censure or political punishment. And that is what is at stake today. That is why this should matter to everybody on this floor. NCAR was founded in 1960, and it has operated over 13 Presidential administrations and 32 Congresses, Democratic and Republican alike. NCAR's work benefits Americans, as we have heard, from every State, from disaster forecasts, to aviation fog warnings, to drought predictions that guide crop planning and water management, to weather intelligence for military operations, to early detection for solar storms that threaten our electric grid and communications systems. When it comes to NCAR, the President's effort at political retribution threatens the health and safety of communities all across the country--all across this country. The entire implication of what the Founders were writing about in this context was that nobody has a monopoly of wisdom--least of all, a President. The Founders' greatest fear was to have a demagogue in that office unconstrained by the rule of law. And they knew how fragile all of this experiment was. They knew how easily, under the wrong direction, it could collapse. Now we know this is not some temporary bump in the road; it is a reflection of what the Founders understood is a fundamental aspect of human nature: that there would always be somebody who would reach out to grab the kind of unconstrained power that this President has reached for. In moments like this, what the Founders expected was that it would be up to all of us--the rest of us--to prevent exactly what they were worried about. There was no self-reinforcing mechanism. Nobody was riding to our rescue, because, as I mentioned earlier, what can happen to our State can happen to any other State. The Founders understood that the American people would know that and that they would rally to support the rule of law, they would rally to support their democracy. What is happening today under a Republican President could happen with the wrong kind of Democratic President. Our children and future generations have a reasonable expectation that their government should be designed to work for them--all of them; all of them--regardless of their political leaning. We have a responsibility as legislators, as Americans, and an obligation to the Constitution, to our respective States no matter what color they are on the political map. I urge my colleagues to reject these partisan games and to stand up for scientific integrity and the rule of law. It is what the people of Colorado and all Americans expect, and it is what they deserve. As I come to a close, I am going to read what I have to read for the amendment. I just want to say how proud I am to be here today on the floor with my colleague Senator John Hickenlooper, whom I have known for more years than I would care to actually admit to you, Mr. President. But one of the things that I know about John is that he embodies the hope, the aspiration that our Founders had for citizen legislators. He is somebody who came to politics with a business background but, I would say in the context of the discussion we are having today, with the background of a geologist, somebody who came to the West to begin with to be able to apply his scientific imagination to the challenges that we were facing at the time and was able to then use that in business but then also in politics and who has brought that intellect and scientific commitment to the Commerce Committee, where he sits. I think all of Colorado has been incredibly well served and the country has been incredibly well served in this debate by that scientific background. If I dare say it--I am not saying that he is exactly who Ben Franklin was envisioning, but I will say that John Hickenlooper and Ben Franklin would have gotten along extremely well had they had the chance to serve with each other. Amendment No. 4153 With that, I ask unanimous consent to call up and make pending amendment No. 4153 to H.R. 6938 to maintain operations and capabilities at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, last night, President Trump announced his attempt to disassemble the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, which is based in Boulder, CO. NCAR is the leading atmospheric research institution and a central part of our Nation's scientific infrastructure. Its research forms the backbone of weather forecasts, disaster preparedness, water planning, wildfire prevention, and aviation safety all across our country. Its work even protects American troops overseas by providing next- generation weather prediction for military operation. NCAR scientists, engineers, and meteorologists equip emergency responders, airline pilots, farmers, local utility managers, and military planners with the tools they need to protect American lives, property, and our national security. The President has blown all that up. But as he tries to shut down this institution, the world has not gotten any less dangerous. We can't wish away extreme drought or pause seasonal wildfires, which, as my colleagues from other Western States know, don't stop at State lines and barely have a season at all anymore because they are so present. You can't rebuild decades of scientific research and expertise once it is destroyed. That is why, today, my colleague Senator Hickenlooper and I are offering an amendment to the appropriations package that would protect funding for NCAR. This isn't about one lab, one institution, or even one State. It is about protecting the foundation of our national research capacity, a capacity built over decades--decades--and generations of taxpayer investment and public service, capacity that once lost can't be replaced and may never be replaced. But we know from painful experience that this attack on NCAR is just another instance of senseless destruction and political retribution, one we have all watched take place over the past year, time and again. Colorado has been singled out by the President. The people of Colorado have found themselves the victims of political retaliation. That is why he vetoed the bill to finally finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit and deliver to 50,000 rural Coloradans access to clean drinking water. This legislation would finally fulfill Washington's promise to deliver clean drinking water to farmers and ranchers in Southeastern Colorado, a promise made over 64 years ago by John F. Kennedy. The conduit has always been a partnership between the Federal and local governments, driven by the leadership of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. In the face of rising costs of materials and labor, once again, Southeastern Coloradans came together and put forward an inventive solution to lower costs by changing the project's financing, with no increase to Federal spending. The bill passed both Chambers of Congress unanimously, with the most bipartisan support anybody could have. But President Trump used his first Presidential veto of his second term to deny Coloradans what should be a basic fundamental right--the access to clean drinking water. This retaliation campaign is why he continues to delay Colorado disaster relief and is working to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal grants for childcare, for energy, for wildlife, and for transportation funding. That is why the President is interfering in the State's ability to decide how we clean up our air and deal with the aging costly energy infrastructure that we have. That is why the President has doubled down on his attacks, not just in Colorado but in other places, on food assistance programs, and, sadly, why he moved Space Command out of Colorado to a State that had voted for him. But these attacks are just the beginning, when it comes to this singular lawlessness and recklessness of President Trump. As soon as he returned to power, President Trump weaponized his office, punishing political opponents, rewarding loyal allies, working tirelessly not for the benefit of the American people but for those--only those--who supported him and for himself and for his family. That is not the American way. It is not how an American President should make decisions about anything. An election is one thing, but once we hold office, we have a responsibility to represent every citizen, regardless of their politics, regardless of who they voted for. This President has taken the opposite approach, unleashing mayhem on American citizens, based primarily on whether they live in a State that voted for him or one that didn't vote for him. We have seen a President send a surge of ICE agents to occupy Minnesota and deploy the National Guard into one American city after another. We have all watched the videos of the chaos and fear and heartbreak these decisions have wrought. No matter your views on our immigration problems, I don't believe any person in America should have to wonder whether masked men in unmarked cars, carrying guns, might, at any moment, snatch them from the street or break their car windows or leave them bloodied on the side of the road. That is not the country that I grew up in. That is not the country that we want to live in. But it is happening today in American cities all over our country. We have seen the President, without congressional authorization or even notification, send helicopters to seize a foreign dictator and the next day tout the investment opportunities that he has created by this incursion--investment opportunities, by the way, that few American companies seem excited about and which promise only to flood the international oil market at a time when oil prices are the lowest that they have been in years. When one oil company decided to dare to tell the truth--to say what any sane executive would be thinking, what any sane observer of the market would be thinking, what anybody who understood the oil markets would say, which is that a country that has a history of expropriating property is not the first investment choice--they were quickly punished. And that should come as no surprise. President Trump's Federal Communications Commission attempted to silence a late-night comedian because he didn't like the criticism. That, itself, would be laughable if it weren't so troubling. For decades--for decades--the United States has stood up for the freedom of expression and freedom of the press, for the right of journalists and authors and comedians to not hide their opinions in underground newspapers and in hidden leaflets but instead to deliver it honestly and widely; to hold power to account; to undergird an important public debate that is the root of our democracy. But those same rights are under threat today here in America. Even the Federal Reserve is not immune from efforts to control or curtail its independence. The United States boasts the largest and most dynamic economy in the world, with the deepest and most appealing and most attractive capital markets. We print the global reserve currency here in America. We are the envy and the first destination of every entrepreneur and innovator in the world. But President Trump seems eager to throw all of that away through lawsuits and investigations designed not to deliver justice but to squeeze the Federal Reserve Chair until he gives President Trump what he wants--lower interest rates. With every action like this, President Trump is undermining the American economy and driving up costs for communities all over our State, and he is doing it in almost every way imaginable. Not even 6 months ago, I was here on the Senate floor during the longest government shutdown in American history, all because President Trump refused to extend tax insurance, premium tax credits, and provide reliable, affordable healthcare that the American people deserve. Now healthcare premiums are set to double, to triple, and in some cases to quadruple. That comes on top of other price pressures that families all over this country are facing, which have been caused in part by the President's trade war with the entire world. The dollar has depreciated sharply since March as investors hedge against the effects of the President's tariffs. Hiring has stagnated, and the unemployment rate has risen. Residential electricity prices increased over 10 percent in the first 8 months of 2025. The price of beef has risen 16 percent over the last year, and coffee is up almost 20 percent. The Agriculture Department expects grocery prices, which are already out of sight, to increase even more in the coming year. Families and small businesses all across America are struggling to afford housing and struggling to afford groceries and other basics, and the President has only made things harder. At the same time, President Trump has worked to withdraw our country from the world--at least when it comes to diplomacy. One of his first acts as President was to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, which provided things like medical supplies, lifesaving vaccines, and clean water infrastructure to the most vulnerable populations around the world. When his trade war with China began to go badly, he quickly capitulated in exchange for a relatively paltry amount of agricultural purchases. He gave our greatest strategic competitor access to cutting- edge technology. They didn't even ask for the semiconductors. After aiding our adversary, he has turned his attention to our allies. He is threatening to annex Greenland--a NATO country's territory--and take military action against Colombia and Mexico, which are longstanding U.S. partners. In the case of Greenland, President Trump's threats risk the unity of NATO--the most successful alliance in human history. This dangerous behavior makes clear to our adversaries and to our allies that the United States is more focused on extracting concessions from its friends than in protecting our collective security. His continued abandonment of basic principles of international law and order will eventually reverberate against American national interests. The only question is when. Coloradoans don't need to look abroad to understand the President's destructive impulses; they have all the evidence they need here at home. When Coloradoans open a newspaper, they might see that the Federal Government has rescinded childcare funding for themselves and for their neighbors; they might see that transportation funding that this Congress has appropriated has been canceled or that energy investments that this Congress has passed have been pulled back. They feel like they are under attack from a Federal Government whose obligation is to protect them, to support them. This is a belief that is felt very strongly by the people of my State, and I think everybody here should understand that if it is happening to Colorado, it could happen anywhere in America, for any reason. The Trump administration's announcement that it was dismantling NCAR was made on the evening of December 16. Over the next 2 days, my office received over 2,000 pieces of mail. By the end of the new year, we had received 500 phone calls on the same topic. We have since surpassed 4,000 letters. I know Senator Hickenlooper has had the same, especially in those first 2 days of outreach when fierce windstorms were sweeping across the Front Range of Colorado and creating an enormous wildfire risk. Numerous citizens wrote to me as they recognized the important role that NCAR scientists play not just in Colorado but in the Nation and in the world. They identify communities that are in the greatest danger. They inform a power company's decision about where to shut off electricity to keep people safe. People in Colorado and throughout the West and I think throughout this country understand the value of NCAR, and they know that sort of essential information and those emergency services are at risk of disappearing possibly forever. I really want to thank everybody who has written in, and I want to highlight some of the stories they took the time to share with me. I am going to read some of those letters now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNET. I am grateful for that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for holding open the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Last week, President Trump vetoed H.R. 131, the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, a bill that passed both Chambers of Congress unanimously with broad bipartisan support. The President did not veto this bill for any substantive objection. He did so out of a desire to punish the State that he believes didn't support him politically. In my opinion, this is the last reason any President should make a decision about anything. An election is one thing, but once we hold office, we have a responsibility to represent every American, regardless of their political party, regardless of their politics. The President's veto will inflict real harm on people in my State by denying 50,000 Coloradans living in tiny rural towns across the Arkansas River Valley and southeastern Colorado access to clean, affordable drinking water. Those farmers and ranchers have been forced to rely on unsafe, carcinogenic water for generations, despite the Federal Government's six-decade-old commitment to fix their water infrastructure. The Arkansas Valley Conduit is the final unfinished piece of a water delivery project that Congress authorized in 1962, 2 years before I was even born. The conduit would wind its way for 130 miles, from Pueblo, CO, to the State line, traversing farming communities that had to rely on bottled water or prohibitively expensive water treatment. This area covers a quarter of the land mass of Colorado. It is sprinkled with small towns and populated with small business owners and farmers and ranchers who are dedicated to a rural way of life, who have been fighting--generation after generation after generation--to try to bring this clean water to their valley but are living in fear that they or their children are delivering poisonous water. There are probably not a lot of Senators here who aren't confident that the water that is consumed by their children or their grandchildren--the water that is consumed in their neighborhoods or part of their State--isn't safe. That, I think, would be a reasonable expectation in the richest country in the world. Yet the inability of us to be able to finish this project--this joint project--has made it impossible for the hard-working people in southeastern Colorado to have the benefit--a benefit that other people just take for granted because they live maybe closer to a city or in a wealthier area than where the people in the Arkansas Valley live. For 64 years, Coloradans have been relying on Washington to fulfill its promise to build on their efforts--they have been a big part of this in southeastern Colorado--to build on their efforts to deliver clean drinking water. The effort to complete the conduit has always been a partnership between the Federal and local government, driven by the leadership of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. In the face of rising costs and materials and labor, once again, southeastern Coloradans, just as the generations before them have, came together to put forward an inventive solution to lower costs by changing the project's financing, with no increase at all to the Federal obligation here. The House passed the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act last July, and the Senate passed it just 3 weeks ago, with the support of every single Member of Congress--every Member of the House, every Member of the Senate. There is almost nothing that ever gets through with that kind of universal bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats, under the leadership of Representatives Lauren Boebert and Jeff Hurd, my colleagues from Colorado, and Senator Hickenlooper, my colleague here in the U.S. Senate, we all worked together to ensure that rural Colorado would finally have access to clean drinking water, something every American should reasonably expect. And the folks in southeastern Colorado deserve it just as much as anybody else does. Instead, when it got to his desk, President Trump used his first Presidential veto of his second term to deny Coloradans what should be a fundamental right as an American. Article I of the Constitution explicitly provides Congress with the power to override a Presidential veto. Although overrides should only be used when necessary, they are essential when both Chambers of Congress have spoken clearly and spoken unanimously. There are very few places in the Constitution where the Founders actually themselves wrote about having a supermajority vote in the Chambers of Congress, and this is one of those things, because while they believed that a veto override should be rare, they believed that it was an essential part of this branch of the Federal Government exercising its oversight when a President does something like veto the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which is wildly out of step with what the people that we represent want all across this country. If Congress allows this veto to stand, we set a troubling precedent. It would mean that noncontroversial, bipartisan bills that pass without objection can be rejected for reasons wholly unrelated to the substance and be weaponized politically. It is no secret--and I am sorry to come to this floor to have to say this--that President Trump is, at the moment, engaged in a political vendetta against the State of Colorado. I don't think any President should be engaged in a vendetta against any State--obviously, least of all, the State that I represent. But what I worry about more than anything is that this is going to become a normal practice around here, which it hasn't been until now, where Presidents reward the States that support them and punish the States that haven't politically. That is not how we should run this democracy. That is not how the Founders of this country wrote the Constitution. They didn't even think there would be political parties. They felt that it was very important for Congress to be able to be the backstop at a moment when, for whatever reason, a President made a decision that didn't serve the American people properly or well. If we can't overcome this veto, I think it would say that no bill is safe and that the efforts of every single elected Member of Congress would now be at risk to one person's view and one person's decision. Later today, I am pleased to say the House is considering whether to override the President's veto. They are putting it on the floor of the House. I congratulate the work of Congresswoman Boebert and Congressman Hurd and the rest of the Colorado House delegation to work with the Speaker to get this on the floor of the House. It is absolutely critical for the people of Colorado that Congress act, that we support, once again, the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which we have unanimously. Next week, this bill will come over to the Senate floor. I urge every single Member of the Senate to do what you did the last time, which is to support with your vote the 50,000 farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado who need the benefit of this clean water. They are not asking, by the way, for a handout here. They have done their part, generation, after generation, after generation, to keep this project alive. They have done their part to get a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives and on the floor of this Senate to be able to keep their faith with their children and their grandchildren. The least we can do in this Senate is to uphold the work that they have done and also the Constitution of the United States of America. I hope every person in this room will use this as an opportunity to stand with the people in southeastern Colorado; to stand with our Constitution; and to make sure that we all--all--take seriously the legislative responsibility we have as an independent branch of government. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for his wise words. I was glad to be here for the end of his remarks because he is right about this moment that we are facing. Donald Trump has painted himself as the peace President since 2016, promising that ``we will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about.'' In 2024, he said that ``I'm not going to start wars, I'm going to stop wars.'' One year into Donald Trump's second term, we know how false those promises were. Just in the last 12 months, President Trump has ordered military action against seven countries, blown up alleged drug boats in the Caribbean without any authorization, deployed Federal troops to at least 10 cities in the United States of America, all without congressional authorization. Now, he has bombed and invaded Venezuela to capture its dictator, Nicolas Maduro. I have said over and over and over again, for years, how illegitimate Maduro was as President of Venezuela, and that is not up for debate. And by the way, it is also not up for debate what an excellent job the U.S. military did in its effort to get him out of there. It was extraordinary to learn exactly what they went through to get there. They did their job. They did their job. They did it excellently. And now Congress has the responsibility to do our job here. As we meet here today, President Trump is blockading Venezuela's ports from exporting oil while threatening to collapse their economy and also to threaten future military strikes against the country if they don't comply with his will. Despite what the President claimed on the campaign trail, war and threats of future wars with Colombia, with Cuba, with Mexico, and even our NATO ally Denmark, when it comes to Greenland, are now animating features of his foreign policy. The President's team claims their operation to oust Maduro was a ``law enforcement'' operation about drugs. That is the legal pretext for the action that they have led, but Maduro is now in jail in New York City and 15,000 U.S. troops and an American armada are still hovering off Venezuela's coast. We already captured Maduro. He is in jail. So what are our troops doing down there? Clearly, this is not about law enforcement. This is not about democracy. No, as my colleague from Maryland was saying, this is about oil. The President has made that painfully clear. President Trump mentioned oil 20 times in his January 3 press conference after Maduro was captured. He complained that Venezuela ``stole'' oil from the United States, and we must ``run'' the country to take the oil back. But the United States doesn't need the oil. Even U.S. oil companies didn't want this invasion, nor did these U.S. companies ever own oil or own land in Venezuela. The Venezuelan Government definitely nationalized its oil industry in the seventies. That is true. From that point forward--by the way, that was when I was about 6. I am so old. But that did happen in the seventies when I was about 6. From that point forward, Venezuela was certainly not an easy place to do business. I don't think anybody here would say that, but American companies stayed, stayed there despite the nationalization and lack of full compensation they should have had that was ordered by international courts. In fact, American companies never pressed for higher compensation during that initial nationalization. And I would say failing to reimburse American companies is surely outrageous, but a decades-old legal dispute over a compensation is not a legitimate justification for the United States to go to war. And very few Americans--very few Americans--would support putting boots on the ground to secure Venezuela's oil. It would be shockingly irresponsible for the President to send American troops to ``run'' Venezuela as he promised this weekend, seemingly, with the sole goal of accessing that country's oil. Bolivia, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Mexico, Angola, Peru, and countless other countries have nationalized some American oil assets in the 21st and 20th centuries. All of them took advantage of American companies. Would the Trump administration have us invade and occupy and govern all these countries to reverse that history? Would the President wield our military as tax-funded security for the expansion of American oil giants in these markets? Remarkably, incredibly, this seems to be his plan. President Trump has floated sending American troops to secure U.S. companies to rebuild Venezuela's oil infrastructure. He has even said the U.S. Government could subsidize these oil companies. Estimates suggest it will cost a staggering $110 billion to bring Venezuela's oil and gas infrastructure back to peak production levels and take at least a decade. I, for one, can think of a lot better uses for that money. And instead of ``no new wars,'' this President has plunged us into a quagmire--paid for by the American taxpayer--seemingly, with the primary goal of giving expensive handouts with respect to oil. Why should the American people foot the bill for this misadventure? Why should our tax dollars fund private interests in Venezuela? Why should American troops risk their lives for any of this? Perhaps the greatest irony is that Chevron, America's only remaining major oil company in Venezuela, was not even asking for any of this to happen. Instead they simply asked the Trump administration, as they had the Biden administration, to allow their continued operation in Venezuela, which President Trump had restricted during his first term. Other American oil firms weren't asking for this either. Few have much desire to go back into Venezuela, which helps explain why Chevron and other American companies have no plans--no plans--to spend, as the President says, ``billions and billions of dollars'' rebuilding Venezuela's oil industry as the President has declared. Despite the President's promises to not start new wars nor pursue regime change operations abroad, today there are 15,000 brave U.S. troops and an American armada off of Venezuela's coast all without congressional authorization. And the President is threatening more attacks on more countries, including every time you turn the TV on, it is another country: Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Greenland, part of Denmark, a NATO ally. Congress has not authorized any of these dangerous potential operations which risk destroying alliances and relationships that have long kept the American people safe. The Trump administration, however, continues to trample on our Constitution with unauthorized military actions while threatening others, weakening U.S. democracy, and making the world more dangerous in the process. Congress cannot allow this to stand. I congratulate the Senator from Virginia for his leadership to make sure the American people's voices are heard in this moment, on this floor, in this Chamber. We must reassert our role to prevent the President from his continued irresponsible conduct. And I think it is really important for us, as I have heard the Senator from Virginia say--it is critically important for us to hold public oversight hearings in which the administration explains to the American people what they plan to do with the thousands of U.S. troops off Venezuela's coast, with their plan to ``run'' Venezuela, and with the regime in Caracas over which they now claim to have control. The unusual thing about where we are right now is this is not some after-action report where kinetic activities is already done and now Congress is complaining that it hasn't been brought into the loop. Fifteen thousand troops are off the coast of Venezuela today. The administration should be here today explaining to the American people what the plan is for those troops. And if it is, in fact, to secure oil assets for the United States of America in Venezuela, which I don't believe the American people will support, I know the American people will never support putting boots on the ground. The President said I don't mind using the words ``boots on the ground.'' I think the American people will mind it. With so many troops and assets still in the region, this is the opportunity for Congress to help determine what our path forward is going to be in our backyard, right here in this hemisphere. The American people did not vote to send U.S. troops on President Trump's project to Venezuela, but I don't think they voted to dominate the Western Hemisphere either, which is what President Trump says his overall mission is. And as my colleague from Maryland said, he is willing to twist the Monroe Doctrine. He is not even following it. He is twisting the Monroe Doctrine, which the United States actually used to keep colonial powers out of our hemisphere, to justify his own colonial intentions to exploit Venezuelan oil. That is a complete inversion of what the Monroe Doctrine is. So I guess the President has rightly amended it to call it the ``Donroe'' version of the Monroe Doctrine. But in any case, it is gunboat diplomacy, a 19th century foreign policy we have not seen on this scale since President McKinley was the President of the United States. And it will normalize a world in which ``might means right,'' as the White House is saying today, doing away with the rules-based international order that we helped build, that has served the United States so well since World War II. All of this would seem to be part of the President's embrace of a ``spheres of influence'' arrangement with China and with Russia. The President seemed totally fine with allowing China to dominate Asia and Russia to dominate Europe, as long as they let us dominate the Western Hemisphere. That is a 19th century idea if there ever was a 19th century idea. He clearly sees little reason to compete or constrain them as demonstrated by his willingness to accept the trade deal with China's Xi Jinping that overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly--favored Beijing. He was giving Xi Jinping stuff that he didn't even ask for the minute he was worried that somehow we were going to get cut off from his critical minerals. But as an unrestrained Chinese Middle Kingdom will inevitably expand outward, as will Russia with its imperial design, history shows us the result will be a global conflict when these ambitions collide, as they inevitably will, a global conflict that ultimately will implicate the United States and put America in danger. This begins to show you how out of the mainstream this President's view of the world is. His constant abandonment of basic principles of international law and order are, again, going to eventually reverberate against America's national interests. The only question is when. Indeed, the kind of ``spheres of influence'' arrangement on which the President seems to be so obsessed or focused is exactly the arrangement that produced two world wars. It is exactly why, after World War II, the United States and our allies established the rules-based order to peacefully resolve conflicts, regulate global trade, and ultimately ensure rules-based international exchange. That order was never perfect. And the United States often undermined it with our own hubris, particularly the invasion of Iraq--which I opposed. And we need to learn from our own mistakes, including by avoiding reckless new wars like the one President Trump has launched. Nevertheless, the postwar order that prevented war between the great powers, among the great powers, and for all its flaws, it largely kept the American people safe. And criticizing that order seems pretty easy, given its imperfections. But the critic's task becomes harder once they are forced to compare it with what came before, the anarchy that preceded the Second World War and what China and Russia offer for the future of this world. This is what President Trump risks with his 19th century foreign policy, with his actions in Venezuela, his lawless strikes across the Caribbean and Pacific, his threats to invade Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, and Mexico. These actions and threats will have serious implications for U.S. national security today and tomorrow. In the case of Greenland, the President's threats risk the unity of NATO, our most vital alliance, the most successful alliance in world history. They risk setting precedent for authoritarian regimes all over this world to intervene militarily under the guise of going after leaders accused of criminal conduct or simply to access valuable natural resources or critical technologies under their control. Donald Trump, President Trump, says he wants to dominate ``our hemisphere,'' he calls it. Surely, China's Xi Jinping wants to dominate what he would describe as his region in Asia, and Vladimir Putin would like to dominate what he sees as his region in Eurasia. President Trump's recklessness risks normalizing such imperial aggression, putting us on a pathway toward a more dangerous world in which ``might means right'' and the rule of law is abandoned. Colorado cannot allow this President to create such a world for our children, which is why we need to continue to fight on a bipartisan basis when possible to prevent another forever war in Venezuela or beyond and to constrain the President's dangerous, dangerous ambition because our country deserves better than this administration's recklessness and our children surely do as well. Thank you for allowing me to speak here today, and I hope this will be a moment when we come together and fulfill the demands that our Constitution requires of the people fortunate enough to serve in this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the GAO opinion letter dated December 16, 2025.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Sullivan from Alaska for helping to get us all to the floor here today. I would like to thank Chairman Lee for his leadership getting us here, Ranking Member Heinrich, and Senators King and Hoeven and Padilla. Thank you to Senator Hoeven for his kind words. We are working together to try to make progress, and I want to thank my team for working well with his on this as well. I am not going to go on for a long time today, but I do want to talk about the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, which just passed the floor of the Senate, and the bipartisan effort to get this bill done and get it to the President's desk. Over six decades ago, President John Kennedy came to Pueblo, CO, and famously promised to build the Arkansas Valley Conduit. It is the last component of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, a Federal water diversion and storage project that Congress approved in 1962. Once completed, the Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver clean water to over 50,000 people in 39 rural communities across southeastern Colorado. That is why for over a decade, across Republican and Democratic administrations, I have worked to secure over $500 million to ensure that the Federal Government keeps its word and that we finish the conduit. Unfortunately, due to recent increases in pipe and labor costs, the total cost of the conduit has nearly doubled. This has created a huge challenge for local communities, many of whom currently rely on contaminated groundwater for their water supply. Our bill, based on the great work of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, takes this affordability crisis head-on, cutting local costs by lowering the interest rate and providing more flexible repayment terms. This is a commonsense solution to ensure that southeast Colorado can afford safe and reliable drinking water. This legislation costs the American taxpayer nothing, but it would pay dividends for 50,000 people in southeastern Colorado, and it would fulfill a decades--many decades--old promise on which they have relied. I am glad the House and Senate have acted unanimously to pass this legislation, and I look forward to the President now signing this bill into law. I want to say again to my colleague from Maine how much I appreciate his willingness to be able to, in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, withdraw his objection to this package as well, and I look forward to working with him to pass the bills he has said are so critical not just to Maine but to this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. I object.

Mr. BENNET. I am sorry to say, this slate of nominations in S. Res. 520 includes Calendar No. 476, Sara Bailey, of Texas, to be Director of National Drug Control Policy. That position is among those listed in 5 U.S.C. 5312. Therefore, the threshold for cloture on this vote would be three-fifths of those duly chosen and sworn. Is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. BENNET. The precedent of September 11, 2025, that established a majority threshold vote for cloture on an executive resolution that provided for the en bloc consideration of nominations excluded nominations at level 1 of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5312 or article III judges. Is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. In the end, it was not included. In the end, we couldn't overcome the objections of the special interests who wanted to deny the American people that choice. But it was an important case to be made, and we made that case. But I voted in the end for the Affordable Care Act even though the public option was left out of it because it did some really important things for the healthcare system in America. Most of those had to do with making sure that the insurance companies couldn't throw you off your insurance just because you got sick; that cancer and other conditions could no longer be a preexisting condition; that you could still get healthcare even if you had the misfortune, as I have had, of having cancer; that there would be no lifetime cap that would prevent you from being able to provide healthcare or mental health care for your children or for your family just because things had gotten expensive over a period of time. These were really critical decisions that were made as part of that bill--in addition to the expansion of Medicaid across the country--to be able to ensure that more working people had the chance to be able to afford healthcare, which brings to mind one of the really unusual--sort of the unusual context in which we have had healthcare debates in America, which is that we are the only rich country in the world, we are the only industrialized country among all industrialized countries where healthcare is not a right of citizenship for everyone who lives in that country. Notwithstanding the fact that we have less access to healthcare than any other industrialized country in the world, it costs twice as much in the United States. It costs twice as much for the Federal Government. It costs twice as much for our society. Most important, it costs twice as much for the people that we represent in our various States, including in the State of Colorado. People in Colorado, as we meet here, are struggling with the cost of housing, the cost of food, the cost of President Trump's uncertain and unpredictable tariff policy. But they are also continuing to struggle with the cost of healthcare because we are spending twice what any other industrialized country is spending to get a worse result. I know the President knows this. The President of the Senate knows this because he is a doctor. I have heard him talk about the condition of our healthcare system. Today in the United States, our life expectancy is 6 years shorter than it is in any of those industrialized countries. What greater indictment could there be of this system? In the 1970s, we had the same life expectancy as the rest of these countries. In fact, we were in the middle. In the years since, we have fallen further and further and further behind as we have spent more and more and more money because the system we have is so shot through with benefits for special interests, among other things, and a complete lack of transparency, which is a fancy way of saying that literally nobody has any idea what anything costs in our healthcare system. I know the Presiding Officer agrees with that. You can't tell what anything costs when you show up to fill a prescription, when you are in the emergency room. We worked together on the surprise billing issue, which is an important part of this. If you are a senior that is trying to get your prescriptions filled, you go from one pharmacy to the next to the next. I will never forget as long as I serve in public office and probably for my lifetime the conversation I had with senior citizens in Pueblo where they basically were telling me that their entire retirement was spent fighting to get prescriptions filled that their doctors had prescribed them. Seniors in other industrialized countries don't spend their retirements doing that. Only in the richest country in the world do seniors have to do that, and that is because a lack of transparency, a lack of clarity is built into our healthcare system from top to bottom. But we took some important steps in the Affordable Care Act. I wish it had included a public option. It didn't. I think that the rate of rise of our healthcare inflation would have been a lot less. By the way, that is what the people that have looked at that bill and scored that bill over the years have said. We have been fighting for it now for a decade and a half. They said that it would actually save the government money because it would lower healthcare costs; it would introduce some competition into our insurance market. I will say this to the Presiding Officer. He will probably be amused by it. This is the one place where I really am a Bolshevik. I believe in universal healthcare for all Americans. I think we should provide that to people in this country as a right. There is no reason not to do it in the richest country in the world, especially if we can save half of the cost of healthcare that we are providing now. Families all over my State, all over Colorado, are fighting to get their kid the mental health care they need, are fighting to get their parents the prescriptions they have been prescribed, are fighting to hold on to their own health insurance, because that also has become less and less affordable over the years. That is a fight that no one else in the industrialized world has to have. I think it is important to point out that most of the people I am talking about--almost all of the people I am talking about are working for a living in this country and still can't afford healthcare, still can't afford the peace of mind that they know that if their kid breaks their leg on a hike or breaks their leg skiing or needs to have the benefit of a mental health counselor, that that is something our safety net provides. Healthcare should be a right. It is a right. And whether you get it or not shouldn't be determined by how wealthy you are or where you live. I think, given the rhetoric I hear out here sometimes about makers and takers and all that other stuff, it is important to point out that almost all the people I am talking about are working or taking care of children or are retired. We should have a universal healthcare system in this country, but in the meantime, we shouldn't be making matters worse, which is why this debate is so crazy. When we passed the Affordable Care Act without a single vote from the Republican Party in the House or the Senate, they said that they were going to make President Obama a one-term President. They said that I was going to lose my Senate seat. In fact, I was asked on national television whether I would lose my Senate seat as a result of my vote on the healthcare bill, and I said: If that is the cost of being here for that period of time, it is worth it. I am happy to lose based on that vote. They ran ad after ad after ad during that campaign attacking me for being the 60th vote for the Affordable Care Act. And because I survived and a couple other Senators barely survived, we were able to preserve that bill, and 30 million people who would have lost their health insurance in America didn't lose their health insurance. Then the efforts in the House began to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They voted, I think--I lost count--I think it was 70 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the House of Representatives--at least 70 times. They never were able to do it. And the longer it was there, the more people came to see the benefits of the insurance protection, came to see the benefits of the expansion in Medicaid, came to see the benefits of at least having a little bit of comfort that they couldn't just throw you off your insurance because they felt like it. Now we have found ourselves in a debate related to the tax credits that so many Americans rely on to make insurance just a little bit more affordable. I wouldn't say affordable. I would say a little bit more affordable. I would say barely affordable but somewhat more affordable. At a moment when grocery prices are what they are, at a moment when rent is what it is, at a moment when we are dealing with the incredible uncertainty these tariffs are causing, it would seem the least we could do is not make matters worse. The least we could do is extend the tax credit so it is a little bit easier for people to buy insurance for themselves and for their families. But just like with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, when not a single Republican supported it; just like when they voted 70 times in the House of Representatives--70 times--to repeal the Affordable Care Act, during this period, this episode, this shutdown, the longest in American history, the Republicans have voted 15 times to take away those benefits from the American people that they are relying on just to make insurance a little bit affordable. We have taken the position that we shouldn't make matters worse, and that is why I voted again against the budget that has been proposed by President Trump and the Republicans, because they refuse to extend the tax credits. They refuse to make things just a little bit better for the American people. I can't say I am surprised by the position. Who could be surprised after a vote on the Affordable Care Act where nobody joined it; all those years of voting to repeal it; wanting to make President Obama, they said, a one-term President; and now the vote day after day after day to not provide the American people the benefit of those tax credits. Before this debate closes, I just want to say again that the current system is in dire need of help. The American people are hanging on by their fingertips when it comes to the cost and availability of healthcare. There is no rich country in the world that doesn't have a universal system of healthcare. There is no rich country in the world that doesn't routinely supply access to doctors and primary care, access to mental health care for families and for kids, prescription drugs that don't cost an arm and a leg. It is not a pain point for those people in the different phases of their lives, much less a pain point every single day, which it is for the people that I represent in Colorado. Apparently, President Trump is going to get his way, and those tax credits are not going to be extended by the majority here. And the cost of health insurance in Colorado is going to increase by 200 percent for some people, 300 percent for some people, 400 percent for people that are living in rural areas in my State. That is thousands and thousands of dollars to a typical family that just doesn't have that kind of money. I just want to remind everybody in this Chamber that when this debate is done, we still have a very important project that we need to be engaged in with the American people, and that is to be able to provide a healthcare system like other wealthy and industrialized countries have provided--where people can count on their healthcare; where they know it is not going to cost them an arm and a leg; where they know, in the course of their lifetime, there are other things they can worry about, like the cost of their rent and the cost of food. But the one thing we are going to do is take care of this problem, just as countries all over the world have taken care of it for their citizens. I wish I could say that the politics around healthcare have gotten better over the years that I have been here. They really haven't. But I think that the debate that we have had in this moment is going to serve to clarify who is fighting to try to make the system better for the American people and who is not. I guarantee you this, as long as we have President Trump in the White House and a majority of Republicans in this Chamber, we will never have political leadership that is fighting for universal healthcare, that is fighting for a public option that can be available to every single family in America. By the way, that is my proposal. It relies on everybody in America to make the best choice for their family. It is not something that would be imposed from here. It would be the chance for every family to say: You know what? I will stay with the private insurance I have or, actually, I would rather be on a system that is run by Medicare, where I know I am going to have access to mental health care and healthcare for my family in a predictable way. I can see my colleague from Massachusetts. I will close by saying that my heart especially aches for young people across this country, the people the age of my own daughters. I had a young woman ask me the other day, a recent graduate of Western State in Gunnison, CO--she said: I am coming off my parents' insurance after I am 26. You will remember that we put that in the healthcare bill. Before that, there was no opportunity for people to stay on their parents' insurance. We did it. We said you get to stay on until you are 26. She said: Senator, what am I supposed to do, take two or three jobs to pay for my health insurance when I have to come off my parents' insurance? I said: That is exactly the right question. That is a question that 26-, 27-, and 28-year-olds are not having to ask in any other industrialized country in the world. Only in the United States of America are we running a system where young people in their twenties have to decide between health insurance and their rent, or health insurance and food, or health insurance and the ability to put some money away to save for a house. We should change that. I believe strongly that if we ever get to the point where we are expanding Medicare in this country, we should do it for the younger kids that are in their twenties first because they have done absolutely nothing to design the system that they are inheriting. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to address my colleagues today in the Senate. During the course of this shutdown--what has now become the longest shutdown in American history--there are a lot of people around the country wondering about what has been at stake in this debate and in this argument. And I think, with every day that has gone by, it has become clearer and clearer what is at stake. I have heard my Republican colleagues, including the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, come to the floor to say, over and over again, that not a single Republican in this Chamber, not a single Republican in the United States Congress, voted for the Affordable Care Act when we passed it in 2010. And for them, that is a badge of honor. That is a badge of honor that they recall from the last extensive debate we had around here about healthcare. I deeply regret the fact that they are so proud of not having voted for the Affordable Care Act. It is true that there was not a single Republican in the Congress that voted for that bill. And that bill was far from perfect--I will admit that. Even at the time, I was leading the fight for a public option to be included as part of the Affordable Care Act because I thought it would be a very important part of constraining costs for the American people in our healthcare system. I will say more about that in a minute. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated February 16, 2010, to then-Leader Harry Reid about the public health insurance option be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, today, I want to recognize the leadership of Manuel Heart, who retires tomorrow after 15 years as chairman of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and 27 years on Tribal Council. For time immemorial, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe has called the vast landscape of the Southwest home--the mountains, canyons, and rivers that have sustained the Weenuche people for countless generations. Chairman Heart carried this legacy of stewardship throughout his career. As a young council member, he began a lifetime of service rooted in a deep love for his people and a reverence for their ancestral homeland. Over the decades, he grew into a statesman whose leadership reached far beyond Towaoc, inspiring both Tribal and non- Tribal leaders alike all across this Nation. As chairman, he helped establish Bears Ears and Camp Hale National Monuments, elevated Tribal voices in the Colorado River Basin, and advocated for the protection of the Dolores River. After generations of the unjust loss of their ancestral homelands, Chairman Heart led the efforts to secure full Federal trust status for the Tribe's Pinecrest Ranch, reclaiming a piece--a piece--of what was taken. It has been a privilege to work alongside him, meeting in Towaoc and across the ancestral homeland of the Ute people, rafting the Colorado River to discuss water and climate policy, visiting cultural sites in the Dolores River Basin, and gathering along the Continental Divide to discuss how Camp Hale should tell the Ute story. He regularly visited my office in Washington, DC. In 2021, I was proud to stand together at the White House to celebrate the restoration of the Bears Ears National Monument. When we introduced the Tribal Access to Clean Water Act, the chairman testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to remind Congress of the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure all of Indian Country has access to clean, reliable drinking water. Chairman Heart also understood that the strength of a sovereign Tribal nation lies in the preservation and vitality of culture and language for future generations. He led the effort to create the Kwiyagat Community Academy, dedicated to teaching Ute history, language, and culture. Visiting the school with him was a profound reminder of his vision and dedication to his people and their cultural heritage. Chairman Heart never let the United States forget its promises to Tribal nations and made sure that my office always included the voices of sovereign Tribes when we made decisions. He taught me what true government-to-government respect means. I remain deeply grateful for his friendship, his wisdom, and his example--for his brotherhood. His legacy reminds us that true leadership is measured not only in achievements but in the strength and hope it instills in generations to come. Colorado and the United States owe Chairman Heart a profound gratitude for his decades of service. We also thank Marie, his wife, and their entire family. Working with him has been one of the greatest honors of my life and of my time in the Senate, and I wish him well in his retirement as he enjoys well-deserved time with his loved ones. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from Minnesota, the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, for being here tonight and for helping to organize all of this tonight, to have this important discussion. I think, this evening, as we are standing here, this will mark the longest shutdown in American history, and that is not something that anybody in this Chamber should be proud about. I have had the opportunity, since I have been here, to watch--year after year after year after year--as these shutdowns have gotten longer and longer. This Chamber does not belong to the Senators that are here. It belongs to the American people. But sometimes the fight is a really important one, and we are in the fight tonight for healthcare for the American people. One of the first shutdowns I ever was here to see and be around for was one where they were trying to defund the Affordable Care Act; they were trying to take healthcare away from the American people. This is exactly the opposite of that. The situation we are in tonight is one where, as we meet tonight, people are having to fill out their paperwork for their new insurance premiums, and those premiums are offset by part of the Affordable Care Act that creates tax credits for working people to be able to buy insurance, to make it a little bit more affordable. Insurance gets more expensive every single year. And we should do something about that, but we are not even having a debate about that today. All we are doing is having a debate about whether or not President Trump and his colleagues across the aisle here in the Senate want to take away those subsidies from the American people. In my State of Colorado, the result of that is going to be that people's health insurance prices are going to double, at least. In some places, they might triple. In some places, they might go up 400 percent is what the Governor's office is saying to us. I do feel like somehow, at the end of the day here, President Trump is going to try to find a way to make sure that those prices don't go up the way they otherwise would on the American people and try to find a way to claim credit for it. I don't care about any credit. I just think the American people need to know that their insurance is not going to skyrocket. But you never know from one day to the next. One day he is worried about the prices on Americans; the next day he couldn't care less. And that is the thing we are here to talk about tonight. Everywhere I go in Colorado, families tell me the same thing: that prices are too high; no matter how much money they try to save during the week, they can't keep up with the cost of groceries; they can't feed their families. Many of these Coloradoans--600,000--rely on a program called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which is our country's largest and most effective program to feed hungry people and families. Every day, families rely on this program to stretch their food budgets a little further. It allows them to buy things like fruits and vegetables at the farmers market and the grocery store, pick up milk at the corner store, and for their kids to have a snack when they come home from school. Now the Trump administration is refusing to use the money Congress has appropriated, that Congress passed from here, to fund this vital help for families. And this comes after President Trump and Senate Republicans made the largest cuts in SNAP in the history of the program, all so they could offset their tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. I have heard from people all over Colorado how mystified they are by that bill but also the fact that they have no idea how they are going to make ends meet by the end of the week: older adults in Pueblo County, where nearly 45,000 residents depend on SNAP who are now facing health deterioration and malnutrition without the food they need; grandmothers, like one in Arvada who can't feed her three young grandchildren; doctors who know that their patients are not going to be able to remain healthy if they can't feed their families. All over Colorado--all over Colorado--county governments like Chaffee, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit are responding to the emergency that President Trump has created by giving grocery store gift cards to families who have lost their SNAP benefits. But that is never going to be enough to offset the damage. Before I came to the Senate, I served as the superintendent of the Denver Public Schools. And I am sorry to say this, but in that job I have seen firsthand what hunger does to a child, what it means for learning, how it undermines not just their future but the Nation's future. We can't build a strong economy or a strong democracy on empty stomachs. Instead of helping families, instead of complying with what the courts have told them they have a constitutional obligation to do, this administration is making choices that raise costs and harm families. These cuts to food and nutrition are the latest moves that this administration has undertaken to make people's lives harder in this country, not easier. They have made it harder for people this week, not easier, to afford groceries in America. President Trump's tariffs, as everybody in this Chamber knows, are driving up grocery prices and costs and the costs to keep our farms running. And as I said at the very outset, they are refusing to extend healthcare tax credits, the result of which could double or triple the cost of healthcare for millions of families all across America. What a record of disgrace. Last week, two different courts said what President Trump is doing with SNAP is illegal. They told him to make the payments to families. But today he said he would ignore the court orders and refuse to fund the program. Later, the White House Press Secretary had to walk that back, saying that now they intend to ``fully comply'' with that court order. I hope that is true. I hope that is true. President Trump has not just the power but the legal obligation to fund these benefits and to fund SNAP this month. I urge my colleagues in this Chamber to stand up for the families who depend on this critical program and demand that President Trump do the right thing and reduce the costs for working people all over this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the leadership of Manuel Heart, who recently retired after serving 15 years as Chairman of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and 27 years on Tribal Council. Chairman Heart led the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, a sovereign Nation of the Weenuche band of Utes, with reservation land in Southwest Colorado, as well as New Mexico and Utah, with humility, perseverance, and a deep love for his people. Over several decades, Chairman Heart grew from a young council member to a respected statesman in Towaoc and across the Southwest, setting an example for Tribal and non-Tribal leaders alike. He balanced cultural perseverance with forward economic and social progress for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and dedicated his service to fighting for a better future for all of its members. As Chairman, he strengthened the Tribe's sovereignty and advanced its voice in State and national policy. He helped establish Bears Ears and Camp Hale National Monuments, raised the voice of tribes in the Colorado River Basin, and advocated for the protection of the Dolores River Basin. He also led the effort to secure full Federal trust status for the Tribe's Pinecrest Ranch in Gunnison County, an area he knows well from countless seasons running the Tribe's cattle below the Uncompahgre Mountains. It was an honor to work with Chairman Heart over the years. We met many times on the Ute Mountain Ute reservation and across the ancestral homeland of the Ute Tribes in Colorado and Utah. Throughout our time in office together, we have had the pleasure of rafting the Colorado River to discuss water policy and climate change, visiting cultural sites in the Dolores River Basin, and gathering along the Continental Divide to discuss how the Camp Hale National Monument should tell the story of the Ute people and their long ties to that land. He was a regular visitor to my office in Washington, DC, and in 2021, we visited the White House together to celebrate the restoration of the Bears Ears National Monument. In Towaoc, Chairman Heart led with conviction and compassion. He guided the Tribe through the COVID pandemic, protecting the Tribe's elders and most vulnerable members. He has also sought solutions to on- reservation gun violence and substance abuse issues and advocated for better access to healthcare and law enforcement. He brought that same vision and steadfast leadership to complex water negotiations, where he advocated for the Tribe's right to access and benefit from their full water rights, which are essential to the Ute Mountain Farm and Ranch. When we wrote the Tribal Access to Clean Water Act, the Chairman testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on the Federal Government's obligations to provide the Tribe--and all of Indian Country--their sovereign right to access clean, reliable drinking water. Chairman Heart also understood that the sovereignty of a Tribal nation also lies in the preservation and vitality of culture and language through future generations. He led the effort to create the Kwiyagat Community Academy, the first charter school on a reservation in Colorado, focused on instilling Ute history, language, and culture in children from kindergarten through 5th grade. The academy embodies the exemplary values and leadership style Chairman Heart carried throughout his tenure: prioritizing the health and well-being of the Tribe while looking to the future. It was an honor to visit the school with him and hear the students speak in Ute and share pride in their heritage. Chairman Heart never let the United States forget its promises to Tribal nations. He ensured that national conversations about water, education, economic development, healthcare, and justice include the voices of sovereign Tribes. He taught me what true government-to- government respect means. I remain deeply grateful for his friendship, his wisdom, and his example. Colorado and the United States owe Chairman Heart profound gratitude for his decades of service and leadership. We also thank his wife Marie and his entire family for their support of his leadership. His heart of service for his people has inspired me, and working with him remains one of the greatest honors of my time in the Senate. I wish him well in his retirement as he enjoys well-deserved time with his entire family, including his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the career of Dr. Martin Keller as he prepares to depart Colorado's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, at the end of October. Dr. Keller has devoted his career to the growth and success of our National Laboratories, his work culminating in nearly a decade spent as the Laboratory Director at NREL. Under his leadership, NREL built the Research and Innovation Laboratory, planned and began construction of the Energy Materials and Processing at Scale, EMAPS, facility; launched the Department of Energy's Advanced Research on Integrated Energy Systems, ARIES; and extended NREL's footprint beyond Colorado to its new Alaska Campus in Fairbanks. Beyond new facilities and capabilities, Dr. Keller has developed an engaged, talented, and highly accomplished NREL workforce, earning him widespread acclaim from his peers. He was named one of the Denver Business Journal's ``Most Admired CEOs'' in 2022 and recognized as Laboratory Director of the Year in 2024 by the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. While Dr. Keller's return to his native Germany is a loss for both NREL and Colorado, the Helmholtz Association, a preeminent national research institution, is lucky to have him as its new president. His skillful, kind, and thoughtful service to NREL and American energy research will be felt for generations. I wish him the very best in this next chapter.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the life and career of H. Edward Quick. Ed was a proud Kansan who served our Nation so well that in the 1970s and `80s, he was often referred to as ``Missouri's third senator.'' Throughout his life and his work, Ed demonstrated a deep, unabashed love of our democratic process. He was the embodiment of humility, generosity, and hard work. Ed passed away in August after a life well-lived and in the company of his loving family. I offer this remembrance so that the official Record of our body may reflect his many contributions to the public good and to the best traditions of the Senate. Ed's Senate tenure spanned 11 Congresses--the 91st through 101st--and five administrations. He helped Tom Eagleton win his first Senatorial campaign and followed him to DC in 1969, leaving behind a near-finished PhD to join the Eagleton Senate staff. In his new job, Ed reported to my father Doug Bennet, who served as Senator Eagleton's first chief of staff, a role then known as administrative assistant. Ed generously credited my father as a mentor and as an example that served him well when he held that same position for Senator Eagleton in the late 1970s and 1980s. Ed was a resolute Democrat and intensely loyal to Senator Eagleton, but he was also respected and trusted across the aisle. Jack Danforth was Missouri's Republican Senator during most of Ed's tenure, and both he and his staff felt comfortable seeking Ed's counsel. Perhaps it is indicative of how closely the two offices worked together that, during Ed's tenure, Senators Eagleton and Danforth started a bipartisan summer softball team called the ``Missouri Compromise.'' Ed was an insightful student of politics and a gifted practitioner of the art of the possible. He had a keen sense of the political winds and a feel for finding the common ground that drove agreements and produced results. He honed his skills relentlessly. Senate coworkers soon grew accustomed to seeing Ed loping through the halls of Dirksen in the early morning hours, a 6-inch stack of Missouri newspapers under his arm. When Tom Eagleton walked into Ed's office and asked, ``What's going on in Dunklin County?'', Ed knew. He then would reduce that pile of newsprint to clippings he sent by mail to his network of contacts across Washington and Missouri. When Senator Eagleton retired in 1987, Ed joined the staff of Arkansas Senator David Pryor, where he worked with chief of staff Don Harrell to expand Senator Pryor's committee chairmanships and responsibilities as Senate Democratic Caucus chair. In 1990, Ed was nominated by President Bush, with Senator Pryor's support, to serve as a Commissioner of the U.S. Postal Rate Commission. To no one's surprise, the Senate unanimously approved his appointment to the Commission, where Ed served until his retirement in 2005. Upon retiring, Ed returned to his Kansas roots: the city of Lawrence and the University of Kansas, where he maintained a full calendar of classes, community service, and charitable work. He continued to be a voracious reader of newspapers, and his wide network of friends, family, and former colleagues would regularly find the resulting clips in their inboxes. This institution and this country owe much to Ed Quick and public servants like him, who freely give their time, friendship, and loyalty to causes greater than themselves. We extend our deepest condolences to the entire Quick family and to all those who knew and loved Bob, as we did.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, last Wednesday, the uniquely American tragedy of gun violence struck Colorado yet again. At Evergreen High School in Jefferson County, a 16-year-old shot and injured two students and an administrator. Tonight, these three victims are still recovering, and their classmates and teachers and families are still reeling. Every elementary and middle school in the State is wondering whether they might be next. It has been 26 years since the Columbine tragedy; 26 years since 2 gunmen murdered 13 students and a teacher and left many others physically and mentally wounded for life. Since that day, Jefferson County, CO, has done what no community should ever have to do: They have built some of the strongest systems in the Nation to prepare for and respond to mass shootings at their schools. At Evergreen, teachers acted so quickly that when the shooter tried door after door, looking for students and teachers, he couldn't reach a single classroom. Law enforcement arrived on the scene in under 2 minutes and located the shooter in fewer than 5. Every single one of us should be grateful to every teacher, administrator, first responder, and student who acted with courage at Evergreen High School. Their bravery saved countless lives, and they now stand as a national example of how to respond to one of these terrible situations. Mr. President, it should never have to be this way. I remember Columbine as if it were yesterday. I was in the Houston Airport coming home from a work trip when I saw our Colorado high school flashing on the screens of every single television set in the terminal. It filled me, as it did all Americans, with horror. How could something like this happen in America? My wife Susan was 6 months pregnant with our oldest daughter Caroline, and all I could think about was getting home to my family. But Caroline and her two sisters, Halina and Anne, like millions of other American kids, have grown up in the shadow of Columbine. They have borne witness to an endless onslaught of mass shootings. Each tragedy is piled on top of the last one during their young lives. In the summer of 2012, a gunman walked into a crowded theater in Aurora, CO, and killed 12 innocent people and wounded 58 more. We lost sons and daughters and friends and neighbors, all full of life and full of aspiration, loved by family and loved by friends. A few months later, Sandy Hook shook the entire Nation to its knees. Twenty first graders--twenty first graders--and six teachers were killed in mere moments. We hoped then that Congress would finally act. I can remember that balcony in the Chamber being filled with parents and children of people who had been massacred in their elementary school, hoping against all hope that this body would do something to respond; that Congress would finally pass background checks--something that 90 percent of the American people support. As everybody knows, to our everlasting shame, we didn't. We failed to act. And somewhere along the Nation, we became numb to these tragedies. I will never forget in 2017, after a gunman slaughtered 58 people in Las Vegas who were across the street from his hotel, I sat through 5 or 6 meetings the next day before anybody mentioned that 58 people had been killed in that mass shooting. Ultimately, 60 lives were stolen as we carried on with business as usual here in Washington. We have become numb. But, Mr. President, for the sake of our children, we cannot be numb. We need to understand that our children never can become numb. They won't become numb. They can't move on because this is their one chance to be an elementary school student; this is their one chance to be a middle school student; this is their one chance to be a high school student. When they witness, even at a distance, even from another town or another State, children being destroyed or wounded by something like the Aurora movie theater shooting or like Columbine or like the Evergreen shooting, the fear that enters their young lives is whether they might be next. That is what they carry to school day after day after day throughout their young lives. The result of that and the result of our inaction is that America's children carry a burden unlike any generation before them or any other country in the industrialized world. They are the generation of school metal detectors, active shooter drills, and bulletproof backpacks. They live with the constant terror that they could be next. Colorado's children have grown up in the shadow of Columbine, and 25 years later, we are still losing this fight. And they have the right to be terrified. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for America's kids. Think about that, Mr. President. Think about that. Gun violence is the leading cause of death of America's kids. Twenty-five years ago when Columbine happened, it was car accidents. Now it is gun violence. When I heard that statistic, I assumed that most of those gun deaths must be accidents, but only 5 percent were--only 5 percent were. The rest were homicides and suicides and mass shootings. In other words, the leading cause of death in America, in the richest country in the world, in the greatest country in the world, is violent shootings of our own children. There is no other country in the industrialized world where that is even close. The indifference in this body is staggering. The claim that this is somehow the price of freedom is staggering or that this is what the Constitution of the United States requires for us, to fully embrace the rights enunciated by the Founders of this country. That is incomprehensible--the price of freedom. What about the freedom of our children, the right of our children to be able to go to school with the freedom that they are not going to be gunned down, the freedom of the knowledge to know that their classmates are not going to be gunned down or that they could go there and be next on the list? What about that freedom? That seems as fundamental as any other freedom that is articulated in the Constitution of the United States, which, after all, guarantees us our rights as citizens in this Nation, including our children. We may have become numb, Mr. President, but our children never will because they are as evergreen as Evergreen High School. This is the first time and the last time that they will be elementary school students and middle school students and high school students. I think we need to find a way to channel their raw emotion, their confusion, their anger, their fear, and their terror and summon the will to overcome our failures--this generation's failures. My home State of Colorado has tried to do that, and we have made progress. After the massacre at Columbine, we closed the gun show loophole, which 90 percent of the American people support. After the tragedy in Aurora, we strengthened background checks in my State. In the wake of the shooting at Club Q, we raised the age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. This year, Governor Polis signed three commonsense gun violence prevention laws restricting the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms, requiring retailers to keep ammunition locked, and setting age limits for gun shows. Colorado is making progress, but States can't do it alone. We can't do it alone in Colorado--a Western State that has a majority of unaffiliated voters in our purple State; that takes pride in our hunters and our anglers and our ranchers. If we can find the will to act, so can the U.S. Congress, and for the sake of our children, we must. With deep, deep regret, I yield the floor.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 497, the confirmation of Sean Cairncross to be National Cyber Director. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 498, the confirmation of Adam Telle to be Assistant Secretary of the Army. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 499, the confirmation of Marcus Molinaro to be Federal Transit Administrator. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

Mr. BENNET

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise today to remember the life of John Stulp, Jr., a son of Colorado's Eastern Plains, Colorado's first and only water czar, and the former commissioner of agriculture for our State. In his 45 extraordinary years of public service, John was appointed by five Governors--of both parties--to two cabinet positions and six State boards and commissions. Governor Bill Ritter, who appointed John as commissioner of agriculture, said: If we had an award for the most universally loved cabinet member, it would be John Stulp. I agree. After graduating from Colorado State University with a degree in veterinary science, John returned to Prowers County with his beloved wife Jane. Together, they ran Stulp Land and Livestock for 50 years, growing dryland wheat and raising cattle, while continuing to practice veterinary medicine. I was honored to spend time with him and learn from John, including a visit to the Stulp farm in 2013. Over the years, the Stulp family farm has welcomed Members of Congress, State legislators, commissioners, and school groups with open arms and warm hospitality. John always had something cold to drink when you were there. He was a farmer first, and of farming he said: You don't farm because you want to; you do it because you have to. It's in your blood. John was elected county commissioner in deep-red Prowers County as a Democrat, which testifies precisely to the kind of leader he was-- steady, willing to work toward compromise, and always putting the needs of Southeastern Colorado first. We could use his example around here. As a water czar under then-Governor Hickenlooper, he had the enormous task of creating a water plan for the next 50 years. Skeptical at first, John's quiet and thoughtful approach brought rural and urban users to the table and helped forge compromise over some of the toughest issues that we face in the West and in Colorado. He knew that rural Colorado was counting on him, I would suspect, all of his life, but he was also thinking beyond himself and beyond his own backyard--about the next generation of Coloradans: his 5 kids and now 14 grandkids and about what they would inherit. John leaves an incredible legacy in Colorado, not just with regard to the work he did to ensure that rural Colorado was represented in the capital of Denver or in the expertise and counsel he gave to countless leaders but, I would say, most importantly to him, in his family. I send, on behalf of the people of Colorado, my condolences to the entire Stulp family--to John's children, to his grandchildren, to his wife Jane. Colorado will feel his loss, and his leadership will be deeply missed. I think his example will testify to the standard every one of us should strive for of leadership in our States and in our communities and as members of our families. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.