[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 11 (Thursday, January 15, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S227-S249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE; ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT; AND INTERIOR
AND ENVIRONMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6938, which the clerk will
report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6938) making consolidated appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Thune amendment No. 4208, to change the date of the
enactment.
Thune amendment No. 4209 (to amendment No. 4208), of a
perfecting nature.
Thune motion to commit the bill to the Committee on
Appropriations, with instructions, amendment No. 4210, to
change the enactment date.
Thune amendment No. 4211 (to the instructions (amendment
No. 4210)), of a perfecting nature.
Thune amendment No. 4212 (to amendment No. 4211), of a
perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
Iran
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to stand with the brave
people of Iran. These are people who have been in a fight for their
freedom. For the past 2 weeks, they have taken to the streets in 185
different cities in all 31 of the Provinces in Iran. It is unlike
anything their country has seen in a generation. Iranians are rejecting
the poverty, the repression, and the ruin that have been brought forth
by four decades of tyranny.
Americans stand with them. I think free people everywhere are
watching. From Europe and South America to right here in the United
States, we bear witness to the contrast--and it is a dramatic
contrast--between the Iranian people's bravery and the Iranian regime's
brutality. The regime's answer to these legitimate protests--we have
seen it--has been mass murder. Ayatollah Khamenei has unleashed his
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and they are doing tremendous
damage. He has unleashed them to massacre his own citizens.
Credible reports estimate that thousands--perhaps tens of thousands--
are dead in Iran. This surpasses the death toll of previous crackdowns
throughout the Iranian regime's history of bloodshed. Tens of thousands
of protesters have been thrown into prison, we understand. The regime
has shut off internet and phone access.
And the regime is doing that because it is anxious to hide its
crimes. It has failed. The truth has gotten out. The world is seeing
it.
For decades, Iran's government has been the world's leading state
sponsor of terrorism. The world knows it. And now it has turned that
same terror onto its own people.
[[Page S228]]
I applaud President Trump's leadership on Iran. President Trump's
strategy has brought Iran to this breaking point. He withdrew from a
failed nuclear deal. He destroyed Iran's nuclear program. He rebuilt
the sanctions the previous administration had torn down. President
Trump has made a significant difference around the world and certainly
in Iran. Maximum pressure has strangled the regime's revenue, and it
exposed its weakness. A weak Iran is a safer America.
The Ayatollah has a history of paying his henchmen--Hamas, Hezbollah,
the Houthis, and other terrorist groups. Iran kidnaps American citizens
and holds them for ransom. We have seen this. Iranian-backed militias
killed one in six American troops during the war in Iraq. Today, it
continues to target our troops throughout the Middle East.
Iran's allies and enablers today are in Beijing and in Moscow. They
share Iran's hatred of our freedom and our people. They share its
determination to undermine our strength. That is why it is important
for us to stand with the people of Iran. Their coconspirator from
Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, is now behind bars, thanks to a brave
military action led by our Commander in Chief.
What is happening in Iran today will determine the future of this
entire axis of aggression. It is opposed to what we do as Americans, as
free people.
President Trump has made it very clear where the United States
stands: Those who massacre innocent citizens will be held to account.
This week, President Trump announced that any country that trades
with Iran will face tariffs of 25 percent. We must continue to take
action to help the people of Iran. In recent weeks, the United States
has successfully seized several tankers that were smuggling oil from
Venezuela.
What were they doing? They were smuggling it in violation of
international sanctions.
Well, we must now do the same with Iran's vast so-called ghost fleet
and stop them with the same resolve. Those vessels smuggle Iranian oil
in defiance of sanctions. Cash from the oil fills the regime's war
chest. It funds its murderous ways. Every dollar that we deny Iran's
government is one less bullet that they can fire at their own people.
The regime in Iran today is weaker, and it is weaker than it has been
at any time since their revolution of 1979. The Iranian grip on power
is slipping. The world sees Iran as true evil, and we must stand with
those who risk everything for freedom.
That is what it means when we talk about American peace through
strength. When America stands for freedom, our Nation and the entire
world is safer.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
Appropriations
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the work of the Appropriations Committee
never seems to stop, and that has certainly been true over this past
year. Under the leadership of Chair Collins, our colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee have held hearings and markups and done the
hard work of writing legislation to fund the government.
They reported eight full-year bills from the committee, most of them
with broad bipartisan support. That put us in a position to be able to
pass three appropriations bills here in the Senate before the August
State work period last year.
We hadn't passed a single government funding bill in this Chamber
before August since 2018. In 2025, we passed three of them, and we were
able to reconcile those three bills with the House and get them signed
into law in November. That is the way we should be passing
appropriations bills, through regular order--a process that gives all
Senators the opportunity to make their voices and the voices of their
constituents heard.
That is a far cry from how things have too often been done around
here in the past. In too many years, we have had massive omnibus bills
written behind closed doors. That is not how I wanted to operate. When
I became majority leader, I said appropriations would be a priority. I
said that I wanted to take bills through regular order to open up the
process and ensure we were making the best use of taxpayer dollars.
We made considerable progress this past year getting back to regular
order. I hope that progress will continue as we look ahead to the next
appropriations cycle, but we have to finish this one first. We have a
January 30 deadline to fund the remainder of the Federal Government,
and we are on track to do that.
Before we leave this week, the Senate will send another package of
three bills to the President's desk. This package received a big
bipartisan vote in the House last week. We had a big bipartisan vote
here in the Senate earlier this week, and we are on track to pass it
later today, and President Trump is expected to sign it into law.
Yesterday, the House passed another package of two bills, again with
broad bipartisan support. I want to point out that this package, like
the three-bill package we are considering in the Senate, actually
spends less money than if we were to do just another continuing
resolution. It cuts $10 billion or more than 10 percent from what we
would expect to spend on these Agencies under a continuing resolution.
That is thanks to our appropriators doing the hard work of going
through the budget and making the tough budgeting decisions all
Americans are familiar with, whether they are running a business or
managing their household budget. That is the result of a better
process, and it is what happens when we make government funding a
priority.
Appropriators are working on another package of the four remaining
bills, which I hope will receive the same bipartisan backing that has
characterized the appropriations cycle thus far. Before the end of the
month, the Senate will need to process all of these funding bills and
get them to the President's desk.
Appropriations doesn't always make headlines, but it is an important
responsibility. So I want to thank our colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee again for their diligence in crafting these bills.
I know that when we finish this cycle, the next one is coming in
right on its heels. My hope is that we will be able to build on the
progress we have made this past year to get the appropriations process
back to what it should be--an open process that every Senator can
participate in.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Housing Costs
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I just got back from an event at the
Center for American Progress. I joined with Senator Duckworth and
Senator Schatz to roll out Senate Democrats' new vision to tackle the
housing crisis, lowering housing costs for every single American. We
call our housing agenda: Opportunity Starts at Home--Opportunity Starts
at Home.
Democrats are going to focus on costs like a laser in 2026 and
beyond. We are going to lay out, over the next few weeks and months,
detailed platforms and plans on many issues related to costs.
In a few weeks, it will be groceries; then, a few weeks later, issues
like childcare; then, energy costs, healthcare, and more. We talked
about these issues in depth this morning, and I will get to that in a
moment.
But, first, I just want to respond to an outrageous thing that
happened with the Trump administration yesterday, showing how much of a
clueless bubble these people are in. Hold on to your seats. It is hard
to believe that
[[Page S229]]
Donald Trump's Secretary Of Agriculture said this--oh yes, a very bold
solution to the grocery costs.
She said, basically: Just eat less and spend less. Can you imagine
the solution to higher grocery costs, eat less and spend less?
Now, it is hard for people to believe she said it. So let me read the
quote.
We've run over 1,000 simulations. It can cost around $3 a
meal for a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, corn
tortilla, and one other thing.
Do you hear that, America? This is what Donald Trump's golden age
looks like: a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, a tortilla, and
something else that the Secretary of Agriculture forgot.
The people who run this administration are just not serious. This is
an insulting way to talk to the American people, telling them: Just get
by with less, and stop complaining about affordability.
The American people have had enough of this. So as I just said,
Democrats--every day, every week, every month this year--are going to
put costs front and center in our agenda. This spring and over the next
few months and throughout 2026, Democrats will talk about precisely how
a Democratic majority would lower costs for everyday Americans.
We are going to go issue by issue, spending weeks at a time rolling
out a plan to lower grocery costs. Then a few weeks later, we will
unveil a vision for electricity and energy costs. We will roll out a
plan to help people afford childcare and healthcare.
Lower costs is going to be the North Star now and throughout all of
2026. And when it comes to costs, it is important to begin with housing
because it quite literally is the closest to home for most people.
For millions of Americans, owning a home is the most important part
of the American dream. Young families, when they own a home, know they
are building equity and they are building a future, knowing they have
something they can give to their kids.
But as we all know, over the last few decades, the American dream of
finding a home has become more of a mirage. The median price of a home
is up 55 percent since COVID--55 percent. Rent is up by a third.
Listen to this horrifying statistic. This should shake every
legislator in their boots because, it is so awful, we have to work to
change it. The average first-time home buyer is now 40 years old. That
is a record high.
And, again, what has Donald Trump done about all of this? Well, his
tariffs have raised housing construction costs by $17,000 per home. He
is launching a criminal investigation against the Chair of the Federal
Reserve. And when there is chaos and politicization at the Fed,
interest rates are more likely to go higher and stay higher because
lending institutions, when they are not sure of the future, keep rates
high to avoid any sudden downside.
Then, Donald Trump, of all things, proposed 50-year mortgages, an
idea so inane and unserious it was ridiculed by the right, left, and
center, right after he issued it.
Ironically, the only decent idea Donald Trump has floated recently on
housing is one he stole from Democrats, calling for an end to
institutional investors gobbling up homes and crowding out individual
families.
Democrats tried to get it done last year. Every Democrat voted for
it, but the Republicans in Congress voted against it, and we didn't get
it passed.
The American people have had enough. What they want isn't rocket
science. They simply want lower costs. They want opportunity. And
Democrats believe that when it comes to creating opportunity,
opportunity must start at home. So that is what I am calling our
housing agenda: Opportunity Starts at Home.
The Democratic majority will tackle the housing affordability crisis
by working to reduce rent, boost home ownership, stop predatory
corporations, supercharge construction, and provide housing security
for all Americans. We spoke about these proposals and other things
earlier this morning, like passing the ROAD to Housing Act, which
Senator Warren put together with great mastery, and it passed the
Senate by unanimous consent--unanimously. In her bill, there are many
things that Senate Democrats have fought for, many bills that other
Members have introduced.
Democrats also want to expand downpayment assistance. We want to
encourage local zoning reform by providing new incentives and
disincentives--carrots and sticks--to localities to reform outdated
rules that stand in the way of building housing. We want to stop
institutional investors from gobbling up entire neighborhoods for
profit.
We want to empower HUD to invoke the Defense Production Act,
something Senator Duckworth has emphasized, guaranteeing the purchase
of housing materials in short supply and scaling production of modular
and manufactured housing. And we want to create an ARPA Home to bring
down housing costs. Just as DARPA was able to lower defense costs, we
need an ARPA for housing. It is a national crisis, just as important as
defense. So let's get an ARPA for housing.
And this isn't just talk. Democrats have delivered on housing relief
when we had the majority. When I was majority leader, we delivered the
largest rental relief package ever, and we expanded rental assistance
and emergency housing vouchers. We saved millions from eviction in the
depths of the COVID crisis.
Now, we need expanded rental relief to help during the housing crisis
faced by so many Americans. It is not COVID. It is not happening all at
once every place, but it is happening in so many places throughout
America. We need the same kind of large rental relief package.
In the weeks and months to come, the American people will also hear
from Democrats on other areas where we are fighting to lower costs. As
I mentioned, food costs, energy costs, groceries, healthcare,
childcare, and so many other things Americans pay for every day.
Democrats are ready to get to work, and as I said, cost--the high
cost of living--and the affordability crisis will be our focus
throughout 2026 because that is what the American people are demanding.
And we will show that the Trump administration and Republicans have
made costs even worse, and what Democrats will do, when we get power,
to reduce those costs in a very significant way that will affect every
single American.
Verizon Outage
Mr. President, now, on the Verizon outage, yesterday, more than
100,000 Verizon users experienced outages and disruptions to their cell
service for roughly 10 hours. Obviously, this caused real confusion and
disruption for many Americans relying on service for work or
emergencies. It is encouraging that Verizon said it will give account
credits to customers affected by the outage, but this raises a very
serious point.
At a time of high costs, consumers must always be automatically
compensated for service disruptions, fully and completely. Last month,
I led Senate Democrats in urging Chairman Carr of the FCC to ensure
that when outages happen, customers are automatically compensated.
Full compensation to customers for service disruption should be
mandated, not just a courtesy, not just a suggestion, not just when the
company decides to do it, it is OK, and when they decide not to do it,
it is OK, too, because that is wrong.
And, again, at a time when Americans want lower costs, automatic
refunds when disruptions occur should be the norm for all
telecommunication companies, and the FCC has a responsibility to
require just that. Americans already facing high costs shouldn't be the
ones paying the price for service disruptions, and the FCC must ensure
that.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MOODY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
Mrs. MOODY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes
prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S230]]
Waiving Quorum Call
Mrs. MOODY. I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum
call with respect to cloture on Calendar No. 299, H.R. 6938.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Tampa Police Department
Mrs. MOODY. Mr. President, I am honored to rise on the floor today to
recognize some of Florida's--the Sunshine State--very best.
As you know, last week we celebrated Law Enforcement Appreciation
Day, and I wanted to recognize two great officers from the Tampa Bay
area, where I, as one of the newest U.S. Senators, hail from.
Last month, Tampa Police Department Officers Jason Sikoski and Kaleb
Girard saved an 86-year-old man who was found dangling off of his roof.
The senior had gotten to the roof to clear foliage, lost his balance,
and had inched his way, with no success, to climb back up to the edge
of the roof. When the officers found him, he was already dangling and
was almost falling off the roof.
And so you can imagine the quick response from Tampa Police Officers
Sikoski and Girard, along with fire rescue, who showed up. They acted
timely, without hesitation, and they were able to save this Florida man
from falling.
And it was obvious from the situation that they found, had they not
shown up, had they delayed in any way, had they not responded swiftly
and acted quickly, that Floridian would have fallen 30 feet to the
ground, where no doubt this story would have ended with a very tragic
conclusion.
So I am very proud today to rise to recognize Officer Sikoski and
Officer Girard on the Senate floor as some of Florida's finest and
present them with our Florida's Finest Award.
Certainly, as attorney general of Florida before I came to the Senate
a year ago, I had always recognized law enforcement for their courage,
for dedicating their professional lives to enforcing the people's law.
Certainly without that brave commitment by them, our society would not
function as we know it. It has been important to me to honor the
extraordinary work of those selfless officers that protect Floridians.
Our Florida's Finest Award honors those Floridians and law
enforcement officers who demonstrate selfless courage, who go above and
beyond to save lives. I am so thankful that these Tampa police officers
saved this man's life and for all they do every day to keep the Tampa
community safe.
Congratulations to Officers Sikoski and Girard for helping us make
Florida stronger and safer. I am so honored to recognize them today on
the Senate floor.
I will end by saying that each and every one of our law enforcement
officers is essential to upholding the rule of law, the people's law.
Without them showing up day after day, faithfully executing their
duties without obstruction or threats or attacks, certainly government
and the people's government could not function the way it is intended
to.
I will keep standing up for the men and women of law enforcement,
every law enforcement officer, because we know that they are essential
not only for a stronger and safer Florida but for a stronger and safer
United States of America.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
299, H.R. 6938, a bill making consolidated appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other
purposes.
John Thune, Susan M. Collins, Tom Cotton, Mike Rounds,
Mike Crapo, Katie Boyd Britt, Jim Banks, Tommy
Tuberville, David McCormick, Steve Daines, Markwayne
Mullin, John Barrasso, John R. Curtis, Roger F. Wicker,
Deb Fischer, Jon A. Husted, Pete Ricketts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
bill, H.R. 6938, making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, shall be brought to
a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 85, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]
YEAS--85
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Justice
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Merkley
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Murray
Ossoff
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--14
Bennet
Booker
Hickenlooper
Johnson
Kim
Lee
Markey
Murphy
Padilla
Paul
Sanders
Schiff
Scott (FL)
Warren
NOT VOTING--1
Peters
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 85, the nays are
14.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the motion to
commit and the amendments pending thereto fall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). The Senator from Illinois.
Credit Card Competition Act
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am trying to remember what year it was.
It could have been 15 years ago in the Senate when I walked into a
hearing chaired by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. It was the
Senate Judiciary Committee. I didn't know what the topic of the hearing
was, but as a member of the committee, I was curious, so I sat down and
listened, and I learned about something I really wasn't aware of.
Testifying were retailers across the United States, talking about
something called a swipe fee, interchange fee. I didn't know what that
was. Turns out it is the fee that is paid to the banks that issue
credit cards when you engage in a transaction. It is not identified to
the ordinary consumer, but the retailer who is using the credit card
certainly knows quite a bit about it. It is the fee that he is charged,
he the retailer is charged, for the use of banks' credit cards.
They were complaining--the retailers were--that the terms in the
agreement, the interchange fee between Visa and MasterCard, which, of
course, dominate the credit card world, were so opaque that they
couldn't even get a copy of the actual contract between Visa,
MasterCard, and this retailer sitting at the table.
They had a stack of papers in front of them which was part of the
contract and agreement for the interchange fee but not the complete
agreement. They were frustrated because they had no control whatsoever
in terms of what Visa and MasterCard were going to charge.
I took an interest in it and asked Chairman Specter at the time: Is
the Senate Judiciary Committee going to do something?
He said: Of course.
The honest answer was no. We had a hearing, and that was the end of
it.
But I took an interest in the issue and decided to author a study to
see what the impact was on small businesses and retailers of these
interchange fees and swipe fees charged by
[[Page S231]]
the banks that issue Visa and MasterCard.
The industry had no interest in any study on any aspect of it. They
made it clear to me they were going to oppose every effort I had to try
to get to understand this issue better by a credible study.
I was frustrated by this and decided to make an offer of a change in
the law when it came to debit cards. Debit cards are different than
credit cards because they are virtually a checking account. You can
only charge as much as you have on balance to pay. And the question of
credit is not as paramount as it is with the credit cards.
So I came to the floor and offered with Dodd-Frank, the banking
reform, an amendment on debit card swipe fees and interchange fees.
Just to show you what a different time it was in the U.S. Senate,
this was a bill that was being offered by Senator Dodd in the Senate
and a Republican Senator as well on a bipartisan basis.
I offered this amendment on the floor and got into the queue. I was
about the 25th amendment that was considered. And it wasn't approved by
the Banking Committee; I was just offering this on the floor. What I
was trying to establish was the actual fee that was being charged for
debit cards.
As I said, I was about the 25th amendment to be offered. It turned
out that there were so many controversial amendments in Dodd-Frank that
I didn't rise to the top as the most controversial.
And so the issue was called and, at the last minute, the chairman of
the committee, Senator Dodd said: Of course, that would require 60
votes. His belief was, if he required 60 votes, the Durbin amendment
would go away, would be defeated.
It turned out he was wrong. The retailers of America came together in
a way they had never come together before to raise questions about
debit cards and the fees that are being charged to them.
The amendment passed with more than 60 votes, to the surprise of this
sponsor, as well as the other Members of the Senate.
As luck would have it, the House of Representatives decided--Barney
Frank, in particular--that this issue showed enough support in the
Senate not to be part of any meaningful negotiations in conference, and
the so-called Durbin amendment went through.
Since then, there have been several efforts on the floor of the
Senate, over the years, to remove the Durbin amendment on debit cards,
where the fee was established with the cooperation of the Federal
Reserve, and they have failed. So we have debit card world
semiregulated or somewhat regulated, not so much on the credit card
side.
Roger Marshall is a colleague of mine--a Republican colleague--in the
Senate today, from Kansas. He and I and Peter Welch of Vermont have
cosponsored legislation to extend the coverage of this issue to credit
cards. Senator Marshall and I agreed, whichever of us had the majority
party at the time would be the lead sponsor. So it is the Marshall-
Durbin-Welch bill, today, that is considered when we discuss credit
cards.
I give this lengthy introduction to show you there is a deep history
on this issue, and it continues to this day, and it has particular
relevance at this moment for several reasons. Let me explain.
Data released this week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms
what many in the Chamber already know from our daily lives: Americans
feel, every day, prices are just too high. Consumer prices--from rent
to groceries, to utilities and more--are up nearly 3 percent compared
to last year.
Affordability is real. It is a concern that supercedes virtually
every other political concern with basic American families. While costs
continue to go up and everyday Americans are struggling, big banks are
rolling in cash, with profit margins around 30 percent. That is right.
Big banks have profit margins in this economy of over 30 percent.
Why are banks making so much money? It is because they profit off of
something called a swipe fee, or an interchange fee. Every time you use
your credit card, Visa or Mastercard charge the merchant what is
essentially a service fee. The merchant pays a fee of 2 percent to 3
percent on each transaction, meaning, if you spend $100, the merchant
gets $97 or $98. While Visa and Mastercard keep some of the $2 or $3
themselves, most is pocketed by the big banks that issue the cards. A
few bucks here, a few bucks there, and you have yourself a pretty good
haul if you are a big bank.
How good? In 2024, the year before last, Visa and Mastercard and
their big bank partners raked in $111 billion in credit card swipe
fees. These swipe fees are crushing small businesses and their
customers through higher prices.
If you don't believe me, listen to what a constituent of mine in
Chicago wrote. Rick is his name. He owns a gas station. He pays $50,000
to $60,000 a year in swipe fees. He says:
These fees have [an] impact on pricing in the store.
Small business owners like Rick have little recourse. Visa and
Mastercard have a near-virtual grasp on the credit card network market,
controlling 85 percent of it. That is right. Visa and Mastercard
control 85 percent of the credit card market.
I will give you an example of some other businesses that wrote to me
in relation to this issue. Credit processing fees are crushing
businesses, taking up to 4 percent for credit card sales.
``Currently,'' this individual wrote to me and said, ``88% of my sales
are credit card.''
It has become, literally, the coin of the realm.
This individual, Laura, says she owns a coffee shop:
My per ticket amounts are low, roughly $5, yet each
transaction can take up to 25 cents in swipe a fee [to the
credit cards].
We need competition in the credit card marketplace and
options to choose from.
Just like small businesses have to compete for customers,
credit card companies should have to compete for our
business.
Laura has a coffee business in Elmhurst, IL.
Why are banks making so much money? The swipe fees are virtually
unregulated. We would like to change that.
Another source of information is from Sesser, IL, which is in
Downstate Southern Illinois. Greg Kelly writes me:
When combined with basic merchant processing fees and set
monthly access fees, credit card fees can add up to nearly 5
percent of total transactions.
Greg writes:
This is insane. This prevents hiring and hinders business
growth, as well as being able to compete. Credit card reform
is needed now.
Small business owners like Rick have no recourse. Visa and Mastercard
have a near-virtual death grasp on the credit card network market,
controlling 85 percent of it. Because of this, Visa and Mastercard are
free to set fee rates on credit cards wherever they like. For their
retailers, take it or leave it.
This allows them to tell small business owners like Rick that they
are going to set the standard. He has no negotiating power. There is no
competition unless the Marshall-Durbin-Welch bill passes. This is not
how our system and our economy are supposed to work. It is time we
bring back real competition to the credit card industry, the kind that
encourages growth and brings about lower prices.
This bipartisan bill that I described to you, the Credit Card
Competition Act, was endorsed by President Trump this week. It was kind
of a pleasant surprise. I didn't know it was coming. He was unequivocal
in supporting it. It would address the outrageous swipe fees being
charged to retailers.
Talk about a hidden cost of business. Every time you use your credit
card, if it is for a transaction, for a meal at a restaurant, for a
contribution to a charity, the swipe fee is being taken out of it, 5
percent or more. My bill would require the largest 30 or so banks--only
the largest banks--to enable at least two credit card networks to be
used on the credit cards they issue, with at least one being outside
the Visa-Mastercard duopoly. That would create real competition.
The banking industry hates the Marshall-Durbin-Welch amendment like
the devil hates holy water. To them, any kind of regulation is
unacceptable. By injecting competition into the credit card market,
this bill would help bring down swipe fees that small businesses pay
and that ultimately get passed on to working families in the form of
higher prices.
[[Page S232]]
Opponents of our bill have falsely claimed such provisions would
squeeze Visa and Mastercard and the big banks, and force them to scale
back reward programs.
I learned something recently in lobbying on this bill. The major
airlines all oppose this bill that would limit the swipe fees and
interchange fees. I was curious why the airlines would be so interested
in it. It turns out, for most of the major airlines, they make more
money off their credit cards that they issue than they do off air
operations. That is right--more money off the little square plastic
than they do on the actual airplane passengers.
So when I go into Reagan National Airport, I am not surprised that
they have banners flashing: Stop the Durbin amendment. Stop anything
that might affect your frequent flier plan.
I often wonder in an airplane--I pay attention to this; most people
don't--when they give the announcements from the flight attendants
about their credit cards, as soon as you reach a point where they
completed all their safety announcements and told you to buckle up and
shut up because we are about to take off, then they announce their
credit card program and want you to sign up for it. That is the reality
of it.
Watch next time you get on an airplane when they do this. These poor
flight attendants have to bring applications up and down the aisles,
trying to get people to sign up for credit cards.
Visa and Mastercard and card-issuing banks have plenty of room for
reform. In 2024, banks netted about $378 billion in revenue from debit
and credit cards, but they pay only $47 billion in rewards.
I value frequent flier miles like everyone else, but the program will
not even be touched. I am no mathematician, but banks have plenty of
revenue to continue offering rewards without hurting their bottom line.
Those worried about airline miles and cash back, an analysis by
payments consulting firm CMSPI found rewards would be reduced by less
than one-tenth of 1 percent, at most, because of the Credit Card
Competition Act.
They are crying wolf. This bill has the support of a conservative
Republican Senator from Kansas, Senator Marshall, and a liberal
Democrat, Peter Welch from Vermont, and myself, of course. I urge my
Senate colleagues: Let's come together and get this done on behalf of
consumers and small businesses. You want to do something that really
makes a difference to the bottom line and debt of families? Address the
outrageous interest rates being charged on credit cards and address the
swipe fees being charged to retailers that are fed into the
inflationary aspects of this economy.
This is the time to do it, if we are going to meaningfully address
the real expenses that families face. I urge my colleagues to take a
look at this measure--this bipartisan measure, this commonsense
measure--that will make a difference in the families that we represent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Campaign Finance
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kelly and
many of our colleagues who spoke just yesterday afternoon to highlight
the enduring damage done to our democracy, nearly 16 years ago, when a
single decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States
gave corporations and billionaires in our country unlimited spending
power to influence our elections.
The case is referred to as Citizens United, and the ruling didn't
just change campaign finance law. It fundamentally altered our
democracy. It truly was a turning point. It was a moment where the
voices of everyday Americans began to be drowned out every election
cycle by a small and powerful few, armed with unlimited money and
unprecedented access.
We see the consequences of it to this day. Just one example--this may
shock you: a billionaire like Elon Musk, who was not shy nor discreet
about spending nearly $300 million to support President Trump's
candidacy in 2024. Others were similarly involved, but he was not shy
about it.
So it wasn't a surprise, it was not a coincidence, when early in the
Trump administration, he was basically given the keys to the Federal
Government and allowed to run roughshod through Federal Departments and
Agencies and budgets through this experiment called DOGE.
That is just one of many, many examples of how those with a lot of
money--corporations and individuals--can now influence elections and
the election outcomes and then take folks into offices that were their
preference to reap benefits, all while this administration continues to
ignore the needs of America's working families, who are facing
increasing electric bills, grocery bills, and certainly health
insurance costs, among so much more.
Senator Kelly and others spoke to this eloquently yesterday
afternoon. I wanted to add to that conversation and add to the picture
of what is happening with campaign finance in America at this moment.
The American people are increasingly concerned with the influence of
money in politics because they also see fewer efforts and resources
being committed to enforcing what is left of campaign finance oversight
and accountability on this administration.
What is left of campaign finance systems and accountability is also
under further attack. President Trump has completely silenced our
country's top campaign finance watchdog, the Federal Election
Commission. Just last year, President Trump fired one of the
Commissioners, Ellen Weintraub, without cause or without justification.
It was clear retaliation for her attempts to hold him accountable
during his first term as President. Removing an FEC Commissioner like
this was not only unlawful and without precedent, but it was soon
followed by Republican members of the Commission also leaving
voluntarily to pursue other jobs.
Under normal circumstances, when there is a vacancy or vacancies to
the FEC, an administration would consult with the Senate on nominations
to fill these vacancies quickly and on a bipartisan basis--but not with
this administration. Now there are just two Commissioners who remain,
and the Agency has lacked a quorum for 260 days and counting, with no
end in sight. It is not an oversight. It is clearly intentional by the
White House. President Trump is purposely leaving these vacancies open,
refusing to send bipartisan nominees to the Senate for consideration
and confirmation.
The reason it is so critical and the reason it is so urgent is that
we are quickly entering the midterm election season. So imagine that.
We are entering a midterm election--a very consequential midterm
election--that will undoubtedly be met with unlimited spending not just
by candidates but through super PACs and other dark forces without our
having the tools of campaign finance oversight, regulation, and
accountability. That should concern all of us as it concerns the
American people.
Colleagues, we have the power to fix this. We can legislatively fix
the wrongs of the Citizens United case by the Supreme Court, and we
must immediately restore a quorum to the FEC so they can do their
critical and important job in the months ahead.
I will continue to be a leading voice in this fight, and I look
forward to working with all of you on both sides of the aisle to do
what is right.
Tribute to Tess Oswald
Mr. President, I rise today with the bittersweet task of saying
goodbye and paying tribute to my communications director Tess Oswald.
Tess has done such outstanding work not just for me but on behalf of
the people of California. She has been alongside me since my first days
here in the Senate 5 years ago. I know I speak for our entire team when
I say that we are honored to have had the privilege of working
alongside her and that we are going to miss her.
She is a proud daughter of California and of parents who served the
public as Federal prosecutors, so public service is in her blood. She
has brought remarkable drive and passion to every facet of her work.
She has both led the communications team and has mentored so many of
the communications team members with her heart and her presence of
mind, which is not surprising to me given her tremendous past
experience both in serving multiple Members of Congress
[[Page S233]]
but also in working on political campaigns--to include a Presidential
campaign many years ago--of the Members she has worked for in the past,
to include that of my now colleague's, Senator Adam Schiff, who also
represents California.
I could go on and on about her resume and on and on about her
contributions to different issues and to different engagements with the
people of California--speaking engagements, speeches, et cetera--but of
the many, many moments that were so impactful, I think the best example
of her insights and value of her advice was in the aftermath of what
has become known as an infamous incident at a Department of Homeland
Security press conference that I attended last year in Los Angeles.
With the visuals of that incident that shook some across California
and across the country, Tess, in her wisdom, took the worst of
circumstances and both properly and successfully pivoted the attention
and the message to where it rightfully belonged--in highlighting the
cruelty of this administration and how it was terrorizing communities
throughout the Los Angeles region and, soon, elsewhere around the
country.
This administration has been targeting indiscriminately and in an
increasingly cruel fashion immigrants and not just the worst of the
worst--the dangerous, violent criminals that the administration likes
to talk about so often. What we have seen in reality is so many of the
immigrants being arrested, detained, and even deported without due
process. The undocumented or otherwise hard-working people who
contribute to our country are the vast majority of the victims of this
administration's mass deportation efforts. Tess has helped to correct
that narrative and to emphasize and highlight that narrative as part of
her public service.
On a personal note, as a husband and as a father myself, I know--and
I share it very frequently--that public service is not without personal
sacrifice. Tess's family has seen nothing different. I have seen her in
some of her personal milestones over the last few years--from an
engagement, to marriage, to becoming a mother.
So I thank Quinn, her daughter; Justin, her husband; and her entire
family for sharing Tess with us over these last 4 years and certainly
throughout her career. Quinn may not appreciate it today, but I hope
she one day learns to appreciate not just the value of that sacrifice
but the importance of Tess's work to me, to our office, to the people
of California, and to the Nation.
To Tess and her entire family, I just want to say that we thank you.
We appreciate everything that you have done for me, for Angela, for our
office, for California, and for our Nation. It is with a heavy heart
that we both say thank you and send you off into your next chapter
knowing that you won't be that far away. We will have to call you back
into action from time to time as life needs it, but we just so truly,
truly appreciate everything you have done and how you have done it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Venezuela
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, since the beginning of this year, there has
been a lot of conversation both here in Washington and around the
country about the future of American involvement in Venezuela and how
that relates to the War Powers Act. So, as we head into the recess and
as my colleagues head back to their respective States and to other
locales, I just wanted to take a minute and update my constituents on
how this U.S. Senator is approaching the situation.
First, I want to reiterate that I support President Trump's decision
to bring Nicolas Maduro to justice for his many crimes. I know I speak
for countless Hoosiers in expressing my gratitude that after years of
oppression, the Venezuelan people now have new hope. In fact, I have
taken meetings in recent days with diplomats, national security
luminaries, business people, expats, and others. Those meetings have
reinforced the reality for me that right now we have an opportunity for
brighter days ahead in Venezuela, and I know the administration is
working with multiple stakeholders to effect that sort of positive
change that we are all hoping for.
I, of course, also want to commend the bravery and the
professionalism of the U.S. service personnel who carried out this
successful law enforcement mission in Venezuela earlier this month--
highly impressive, highly sophisticated. I am awestruck by the mission
and all that it accomplished, and I thank the men who were a part of
that.
Now, while I applaud and stand with the President and his team on the
law enforcement action taken in Venezuela to remove Nicolas Maduro,
that law enforcement mission is now complete. I just want to clarify
that for many of my constituents.
I have also expressed concerns about the possibility of American
military involvement in Venezuela as we move forward. The President and
members of his national security team have openly stated that the
United States now runs Venezuela, and because we can't predict the
future, no one can guarantee with certainty that an American military
presence won't be required to stabilize the country.
So I, along with whom I believe to be the majority of Hoosiers, am
not prepared to commit American troops to that mission. I strongly
believe that any such commitment of U.S. forces in Venezuela must be
subject to debate and authorization from Congress. That is what has
animated so much of my activity in recent days and weeks.
That belief is not a new one to this situation or to this President.
In fact, for over a decade and under multiple Presidents, I have pushed
for Congress to fulfill its role as defined in the Constitution on
matters involving the use of military force. Since U.S. involvement in
Venezuela began last year, I have pushed for briefings and other forms
of congressional engagement. Just last week, because of those concerns,
I ultimately voted to advance a War Powers Resolution to make my
concerns crystal clear to the administration and to my colleagues.
The reality, though, is this: Even if the Senate had adopted that
resolution, had it not been derailed through a procedural vote, it
likely would have died in the House of Representatives--very likely--or
at a minimum have been vetoed by the President of the United States.
That much was clear.
Given that stark, incontrovertible, unavoidable reality, I have had
numerous conversations with senior national security officials over the
past week and since the first vote took place, and in those
conversations--some in person, some by phone--I received assurances
that there were, No. 1, no longer any American troops in Venezuela. I
also received a commitment that if President Trump were to determine
American forces were needed in any major military operation in
Venezuela, the administration would come to Congress in advance--in
advance--to ask for a formal authorization on the use of military
force.
Lastly, Secretary Rubio has agreed to my request to appear before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to provide a public update on
Venezuela immediately after the recess, facilitating the very type of
public debate and, if necessary someday, authorization around these
matters, hopefully working the muscle memory of this institution and
its various committees on issues of war powers so that they might be
more inclined to operate those prerogatives--to exercise those
prerogatives in the future.
For those like me who want Congress to perform its longstanding role
on these issues, the commitments I have secured are major commitments
that will help keep Congress better informed, help ensure we make
better decisions, and ensure in this situation that any future
commitment of U.S. forces in Venezuela is subject to public debate and
authorization here in this body.
Let me just end by saying that President Trump campaigned against
forever wars. Millions of people strongly supported him in that
position. I strongly support him in that position still today, and I
believe that a drawn-out campaign in Venezuela involving the American
military, even if unintended, would be the opposite of President
Trump's goal of ending foreign entanglements. But I also make that
statement with humility, understanding that world events are fluid,
that the world is complicated, and that circumstances can change.
[[Page S234]]
What all of us in this body should want is the opportunity to perform
oversight and provide input on these critical foreign policy issues on
behalf of those we represent. If we must make a decision--a very
difficult decision--at some point in the future, our constituents
should be able to hold us accountable for those decisions.
Regardless of who serves as President or which party controls the
White House, Congress must get back to carefully fulfilling its
constitutional responsibilities. I am pleased that we have a path
forward toward that goal now, and I look forward to the next steps in
the weeks ahead.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Appropriations
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to
congratulate the appropriations colleagues who have got us to this
point of voting today on final passage of three important
appropriations bills.
I want to congratulate specifically Senator Collins and Senator
Murray from my home State of Washington. They have done an admirable
job, and I certainly want to compliment Senator Murray for her hard
work and attention on policies that affect our State, particularly in
the areas of water. But we are here today because we want to say to our
fellow colleagues: These are three important bills to preserving
science and the role that science plays in moving our Nation forward.
Last May, I hosted an online roundtable with Senator Van Hollen, a
lead appropriator--and I thank him and the rest of the appropriators on
the committee, both on the Democrat and Republican side--because we
wanted to speak out about how Federal Agencies and scientists,
including some from my State, were here to decry the impacts that we
would see if the Trump administration was successful at cutting the
National Science Foundation particularly, cutting NOAA, cutting NASA.
These participants made it clear that industry depends on strong
partnerships with the government to conduct basic and applied science
and that they can't do it on their own. Important people also were
convened in a group in June--meteorologists from around the country--to
specifically home in on how cuts to the NOAA budget would endanger
Americans on issues like peak hurricane and wildfire season.
And we called on the administration to restore the Agencies to their
full capacity. So I am very happy that these three bills, I think,
represent a win for science as was recently reported in the New York
Times. But it also was specifically important for the science NOAA
research budget: $634 million so that NOAA can continue to improve
weather forecasting and development of tools that actually save lives
and save money.
I know my colleagues from all over the country are plagued by weather
events. It could be a hurricane; it could be a tornado; it could be a
flood. We obviously were just impacted in the Pacific Northwest, but we
need the tools. We need new hurricane hunters. We need new radar
systems. We need the meteorologists.
We need the people on the ground, like what happened in Texas, so
that you can take weather information about how warmer events are
creating more precipitation, and that precipitation could lead to
record flooding. We need the whole system to work with the emergency
responders, and we need the ability to get people out of harm's way.
These bills also maintain NOAA's fishery funding and increase
investment in salmon hatcheries and the Columbia River, and it protects
the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund from being zeroed out.
I see my colleague from Oregon here. I know, as an appropriator, he
knows how well and important the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
is, just as my colleagues from Alaska, Oregon, California, Idaho, and
Montana know. The whole region knows how important these funds are.
Congress has rejected the administration's attempts in the NOAA
budget to cut $1.7 billion out of the NOAA budget. It literally wanted
to slash the entire R&D arm of NOAA and slash the NOAA fisheries budget
by 29 percent, and these three bills today obviously reject that.
We are also sending a strong message that we believe in our
scientists in other Agencies, and I will get to NASA in a minute. But
just on this continued improvement of sensors and instruments, this
bill invests in NOAA's critical research and lifesaving Agencies.
During the last month of record flooding in my State, over 100,000
people were forced to evacuate their homes, and now, 73 landslides have
been reported. So these important reminders, like weather events, are
why we sent a five-point plan to the President saying funding for
research, technology, tools, buoys, and other information are important
to modernizing the Nation's weather forecasting capabilities.
In addition, as I mentioned, there were other Agencies where the
President thought we should make massive cuts. Thank God our bipartisan
efforts by appropriators and our colleagues represented by the earlier
votes on these bills show that we don't agree with that.
We will double the request for funding for the National Science
Foundation, and we support the NSF fundamental applied research
investment in universities across our Nation. This is important work in
all sorts of medical devices, insulin pumps, pacemakers, important
things for healthcare and for manufacturing competitiveness.
We also with this bill send a strong message that we stand by our
NASA Agency. This legislation funds all NASA mission areas and avoids
jeopardizing our exploration of the moon and solar system. We are not
going to put aviation safety at risk or leadership in aerospace
technology such as advanced composites.
It restores NASA's budget from under $19 billion, as proposed by the
Trump administration, to $24 billion to ensure that we can return to
the Moon before China and sustain America's presence there.
So I am very happy that all of these things are really important
investments, generational investments in science programs, rejecting
the cuts by the administration, and instead fueling the innovation
economy that is so important for America's competitiveness.
While I am very happy to celebrate these three bills, we also have
more work to do. This week, it is clear that the economic numbers point
to the fact that we are not lowering costs in America. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics said this week that consumer prices are up 2.7 percent
higher than a year ago. It has been a full year since this
administration has set in motion its economic policies, and now, we
know the prices of groceries are up 2.4 percent, the price of shelter
is up 3.2 percent, the price of medical services is up 3.5 percent, the
price of electricity is up 6.7 percent, and the price of natural gas is
up 10.8 percent.
So the reality is, is that tariffs are having an impact. They are
adding to the sticker shock on American families, and they are
affecting the price of everything from coffee to clothes to cameras to
furniture.
A team of Harvard economists have been tracking retail prices using
realtime barcode data. So one thing I want to show is just look at this
chart that we are presenting here, ``Tariffs are Raising Prices for
Americans.'' With January 2024 retail prices as a benchmark, you can
see that, during 2024, retail prices were trending down on both
domestic goods and imported goods.
These two lines here--these two lines on domestic and imported goods
were basically trending downward--this upper line: domestic, imported
goods. So here we are all the way through 2024; these numbers are going
down.
But all of the sudden, in 2025 and particularly here in April, all of
the sudden, the numbers for both imported and domestic products start
going back up, all the way to where we are today, so 2024 policies of
the last administration driving prices down. All of the sudden, tariff
implementation and these policies, prices now going back up.
This is when so-called ``Liberation Day'' tariffs were announced.
Americans started getting squeezed. I don't think they are feeling very
liberated. This has been the centerpiece of the President's economic
policies, and it remains, in my mind, a broken promise on trying to
lower costs.
Inflation does remain a consistent problem. American businesses know
it;
[[Page S235]]
American families know it; and they are being squeezed by it. So I am
hopeful the Supreme Court will act soon and help Americans by lowering
the prices they are feeling because of the Trump tariffs and the fact
that they are being imposed on manufacturers, on households, and
consumers that are having an effect on our economy.
But I want Congress to act. I hope that, as the Supreme Court takes a
look at this, that my colleagues will realize that it is their
constitutional duty to play a role here and be responsible, similar to
what the Cantwell-Grassley Trade Review Act says. That is, that we are
saying Congress has the dutiful constitutional authority on tariffs and
you have to have all trade policies come before Congress in a
transparent and consistent fashion.
I hope that my colleagues will respond to this as the Supreme Court
acts, and hopefully, we will get more attention to the oversight
demanded on high costs being impacted by tariffs.
We also must work harder to stop inflation and support policies that
my colleagues on our side of the aisle have been talking about: how we
want to have more affordable housing, how we want to lower the cost on
household goods in general, how we want to address energy prices, and
how we want Americans to feel like they can keep pace.
Yet here we are on one of the biggest crisis that we could do
something about right now--healthcare--and we are not doing anything
about healthcare, the expired ACA--the Affordable Care Act--enhanced
premium tax credits, the commonsense solution that we would have had,
many Americans--millions of Americans--still having affordable
insurance.
Our colleagues have not chosen to address this issue. The House
passed an extension, a 3-year extension, and yet here we are, about to
leave for a week, and our colleagues in the Senate will not even bring
that extension up for a vote.
Mr. President, 80,000 people in my State are now at risk of losing
their health insurance. So I asked our colleagues to do something about
this. I see the President released a one-page healthcare framework
today, and I am glad he is getting in that, but today is the end of
enrollment. We need more than a one-page plan. There are a lot of
details that go into something that is 18 percent of U.S. GDP. This is
almost 1 in every $5 spent in the American economy.
And after 15 years, we have heard nothing really from our Republican
colleagues on how they are going to drive down the cost of healthcare.
So my constituents now looking at these increased inflation numbers
also know that they can't afford to get sick. If they are going to lose
this healthcare, they can't afford the impacts of the economy, and they
can't afford the impacts of healthcare disappearing out from under
them.
It is time we address inflation on a daily basis here. It is time we
really think about what we can do to help the U.S. economy, help
Americans keep pace, and help Americans restore the healthcare that
they deserve to have.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington
State for her fierce advocacy on healthcare and on so much more in
terms of the affordability of living in America. Our families are
oppressed.
Mr. President, we are considering a trio of appropriations bills, and
one of those is the appropriation bill, or spending bill, for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies. I believe that this Interior bill
for fiscal year 2026 is an important step toward Congress reclaiming
its constitutional power of the purse.
The bill protects funding for public lands, including national parks,
wildlife refuges, conservation lands, and national forests.
President Trump's proposed budget slashed $1 billion from the
National Park Service and created the opportunity to transfer or sell
off our national park treasures. This bill rejects that vision. It has
a better plan: full staffing capacity for our national parks, full
complement of seasonal staff, State and Tribal historic preservation
offices funded, and needed park maintenance and repairs funded.
President Trump proposed massive cuts to the U.S. Forest Service,
which would be devastating, $1.4 billion in cuts. Those of us who live
in the West who have significant amounts of Federal forests know how
much investment it takes to appropriately manage these lands.
So this bill presents a better plan. It funds the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program. It preserves State forestry
grants and programs for research and forest health management. It
invests in hazardous fuels reduction projects and wildfire preparedness
and suppression efforts. It ensures that Federal wildlife firefighters
are fully paid. The bill funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund at
$900 million instead of a much smaller amount proposed by the
President. And this bill requires that all projects get funded, not
simply projects that the President favors.
The bill fully funds Payments in Lieu of Taxes, normally known as
PILT, to ensure counties across the country, especially rural
communities, have resources they need. The bill upholds our commitment
and treaty obligations to Tribes. It rejects President Trump's attempt
to slash $1 billion from Tribal programs. It boosts funding for the
Indian Health Services. It provides resources to staff newly opened
hospitals and clinics, and it preserves the Indian Health Services
advanced appropriations for fiscal year 2027 to ensure that, if there
is a government shutdown, healthcare through the Indian Health Service
will not shut down. That is protection for 2.5 million people across
Indian Country.
President Trump proposed gutting the Environmental Protection Agency.
This bill has a better plan. It provides almost $5 billion above his
budget. It protects the Energy Star Program, the water and wastewater
State Revolving Funds--so important to so many communities across the
land--and the WIFIA Program, the Water Infrastructure Finance
Innovation Act, that provides low-cost loans for large water projects
across the country that would otherwise be unaffordable.
It preserves programs for air quality management and pollution
control. And the bill includes more than $1.7 billion for community
initiated projects. Now, these are projects where communities said,
Here is our top priority, and Senators then advocated and House Members
advocated that those projects be included in this budget. That is a
powerful vision of a local understanding of the best and the most
important need being addressed through this bill. Often, that involves
replacing wastewater treatment plants or restoring critical watersheds.
This bill, in addition to these programs, takes another critical step
forward. When programs are included in an appropriations bill, the
details of how Congress intends for those funds to be spent are
traditionally laid out in report language. The report language doesn't
have the force of law, but in the understanding of the separation of
powers, the administrations of the past respected and operated
according to that report language.
Every single former Presidential administration has honored those
directives, but not the Trump administration. That is why we have
included 140 new line items in legislative text, moving items that used
to be in report language into the actual language of the law.
It is a challenge if the administration does not respect the visions
laid out through the language of our spending bills. How can Members of
Congress negotiate a compromise that includes the priorities of
different Senators from different parts of the country, different House
Members from all over the country, if a President is going to say,
Well, you know what, I have decided I am simply not going to act on
some of those projects; maybe I will only implement the projects for
red States and not blue States?
Or maybe a different President might say: I will to the projects for
blue States but not red States--or Senators I like rather than Senators
I don't like.
No. That is unacceptable. Every time you hear the phrase of the
administration saying--a Cabinet Member or the President himself, We
are going to cut programs that don't align with the administration's
priorities, that is an authoritarian strongman state comment
[[Page S236]]
that breaks the law and guts the Constitution. That is the
administration stealing the power of the purse.
The Founders deliberately placed the power of the purse--the spending
power--with Congress. You can read it in article I of the Constitution
because it is therefore the people's representatives who decide the
design of the programs and how much money they will receive. If just
the Chief Executive makes those decisions, then we don't have a
President; we have a King; we have a tyrant. And we here in Congress
have failed our responsibility to defend the Constitution--yes, that
Constitution, the one we took an oath to defend.
It is the vision of a democratic republic that we come together from
all over the country, from different walks of life, and work together
to forge spending bills and authorizing bills that serve interests
across this Nation.
In a continuing resolution last year, Congress abdicated that
responsibility. We failed in defending the Constitution and effectively
handed the President a blank check. That is exactly what Trump wanted
this year, another blank check to operate as a tyrant instead of a
constitutional President.
But he is not getting it. We have protections in these spending bills
that take a significant stride toward defense of our constitutional
responsibility and the power of the purse. Now, it is not as strong a
language as I would have liked, and yes, there is vulnerability to
slow-walking or freezing or transferring, but we have taken a strong
step in the right direction.
There is more we need to do in that, more than we ever thought we had
to do, but it is going to take the majority and minority parties
working together to fully restore our responsibility under the
Constitution.
A huge thank you to the chair of the committee, the subcommittee,
Senator Murkowski. She is a great partner to work with. We come from
different sides of the aisle, but we both come from States full of BLM
lands--Bureau of Land Management lands, that is--full of forests, full
of challenges that are addressed in this bill. We both care a great
deal about the environment, that we have a responsibility to defend now
and hand to the next generation in healthy condition. The bill that we
worked on together here in the Senate, it passed the Senate committee
26 to 2. That says a lot.
To summarize, the bill before us today rejects the President's
disastrous cuts. It defends our public lands and our Tribal programs
and our environment. It keeps out new poison pill riders--and there
were a lot of them in the House version of this bill.
Together, let's proceed to do more of this kind of bipartisan work
and to enable the responsibilities invested in Congress to be fulfilled
in responsibility to our constituents across the Nation and the
structure of our democratic republic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Flint, Michigan
Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. President, I rise today as the new Senator from the
State of Michigan and in particular to recognize the 10-year
anniversary of the declaration of emergency in the city of Flint, MI,
10 years on.
In April of 2014, the city of Flint decided to switch the city's
water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River. It was a decision made
by State officials to save money at the time, but neither the city nor
the State made sure to treat the new water before it came into Flint's
taps.
Because of that, an American city was poisoned. In less than 2 years,
100,000 people were exposed to toxic levels of lead, bacteria, heavy
metals like iron, and chemicals known to cause cancer. That includes
about 10,000 children. Imagine the Big House at U of M packed on game
day, and that is how many people were poisoned.
Ten years ago this week, President Barack Obama declared a Federal
state of emergency for the city of Flint, and that declaration wasn't
necessarily the beginning of the crisis, but it was supposed to be the
beginning of the end, a turning point where Flint could begin to
recover.
But let me be clear, the crisis in Flint has not ended--not in Flint,
not in Michigan, and as a Michigander and Flint's Senator, not for me.
Flint is a community still in pain, still seeking justice, still
seeking accountability. As Flint's newest Senator, I wanted to be here
on the 10-year anniversary to make sure Michiganders and Americans
don't forget what happened.
Like I said, let's review the bidding. Flint is an apocalyptic
poisoning of an American city, and it should be a warning to all
Americans on what happens when there is not accountability. It is a
story of government's failure to protect its citizens, and more than
that, it is a human tragedy of ordinary people living ordinary lives,
people like Brittney Thomas.
Brittney lives in Flint. She has two children, Jabari and Janiyah.
Janiyah was just a year old when the city of Flint switched their water
from the Flint River. Jabari was 4. Around her, Brittney's neighbors
began seeing foam coming out of their taps. Their water was yellow or
brown or rust-colored. It smelled metallic. Visible particles were
floating around in the water.
Soon, Brittney and her children started developing unexplained
rashes. Janiyah's soft baby skin was streaked with red, riddled with
bumps. Concerned, Brittney, of course, reached out to her pediatrician.
Then her children started having seizures. For months, they were in and
out of the hospital. Brittney didn't know why. She could only watch in
panic as her kids grew sicker.
To the parents watching this, imagine your 1-year-old baby, this
tiny, helpless life that you are supposed to protect, seizing again and
again, and you have no idea what is going on. There are no words to
describe that terror.
Being in and out of the hospital had other consequences. Brittney
lost multiple jobs. She began struggling with her bills. She was forced
to borrow money from loved ones, and the effects of these unexplainable
illnesses seeped into every aspect of their lives.
For the rest of 2014, more and more families in Flint began to
experience sudden, strange symptoms: thinning hair, rashes, seizures,
pain, and chronic conditions. Kids began developing speech impediments,
seemingly out of nowhere. Students consistently getting As and Bs were
suddenly having a hard time being able to read or think clearly. Their
grades slipped. Some developed learning disabilities. Many kids started
showing changes in their behavior, where once they were calm, sweet,
and curious, they became extremely anxious, emotional, and aggressive.
Their parents had no idea why. There was no visible reasons, no
obvious explanation. Water, even when it is poisoned, leaves very few
visible scars.
It wasn't until doctors ran blood tests that Brittney discovered that
her children had lead poisoning. Families across the city started to
get the same diagnosis. But that wasn't enough of an explanation.
Brittney knew it. So did other parents. And they suspected there was a
link between their kids getting sick and the brown water coming out of
their tap, so they began demanding answers. They raised issues with the
city council, with county leadership, with State officials. Every time,
they got the same response: Our tests are showing that the water is
just fine.
Others waved off the signs. Flint is a poor city. Its residents are
mostly African American. It was way too easy for leaders to just shrug
and look away. Sometimes, people actually laughed.
Some parents were spending days at a time in the hospital. They were
living a nightmare, and they were asking their leaders for help.
Instead of getting answers and support, they were dismissed.
Brittney and other parents, including Melissa Mays and Leeanne
Walters, wondered if the city's tests were actually accurate. They
decided to test the water for themselves. So in January of 2015, they
got boxes of test kits and instructions from a lab supervisor at
Flint's water treatment plant. They paid for it with Melissa's tax
refund.
The accepted limit for lead in drinking water is 15 parts per
billion. One home, the home of Leanne Walters, showed a test reading
104 parts per billion. Leanne tested her water again a few weeks later.
This time, it jumped to 400 parts per billion. The water her kids were
drinking, bathing in, and brushing their teeth with contained more than
25 times the amount of lead that is safe for children.
[[Page S237]]
Terrified and frustrated, she called the EPA to complain. She reached
a researcher named Miguel Del Toral, who began investigating. Over the
next few weeks, Miguel asked Michigan's Department of Environmental
Quality over and over again whether Flint's water had been treated
properly. First, they said it had been treated. Then they admitted it
hadn't.
Miguel couldn't believe what he was hearing. Flint was an older city,
which meant their plumbing was mostly lead pipes. In his field, it was
common knowledge that corrosion control was needed to prevent exactly
this type of crisis.
Brittney, Melissa, and other parents organized marches and protests
almost every week. In July, over 500 people marched 70 miles from
Detroit to Flint. Everyone, from local media, to international press,
to Hollywood directors, started paying more attention. Yet, when
Michigan outlets reached out to the State's environmental department,
their spokesman said the following:
Anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water in
Flint can relax.
Doctors like Dr. Mona Hanna, a pediatrician, compared the results to
her own patients' records from the last 2 years. The results matched
exactly. Flint was being poisoned by its own drinking water. Dr. Mona
and other doctors teamed up with parents to shine a light on these
results, and they talked to anyone who would listen.
It is an important lesson in banging pots and pans until you get the
help you need. But it took almost 2 full years of advocacy and fight
from Flint's parents for their kids to get this declaration of an
emergency.
During those 2 years and beyond, the scale of the government's
deception started coming out. Detroit press reported that the city had
known about the risk to the water before they even switched the source.
A city report back in 2011 had identified the Flint River as corrosive,
in need of special chemicals. Both city and State officials reported
that as early as 2013--a year before the city water was switched.
But Michigan's own State environmental department had been doing
exactly what they accused others of doing--manipulating data. They had
changed city reports to make the lead levels look within acceptable
levels. The State's tests, which they had cited for months to discredit
the Flint parents, were revealed to have been cherry-picked.
Meanwhile, Federal reports of lead in Flint's water had been buried
by senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency until
Miguel--that one researcher we spoke about--risked his job and leaked
the reports to the press.
Starting things off, 12 people died from Legionnaire's disease alone.
In fact, Flint knew how to fix these problems before they even
changed the water and did it anyway. Treating Flint's water would have
cost approximately $60 a day. For $60 a day, officials could have
prevented 100,000 people from getting poisoned.
Now, what has that led to? Flint's advocacy changed more than just
the city's water source; it changed Michigan. Michigan is the Great
Lakes State. Water is part of our core identity. We have always seen
ourselves as protectors of our Nation's water.
Threats to our water are threats to our very identity as
Michiganders. To be frightened of our water hits at the core of who we
are. But Flint helped us realize that protecting water doesn't start
and stop at the Great Lakes; it includes the water around us--in our
rivers and in our taps. Because of Flint, Michigan is now a powerful
voice speaking out on issues like PFAS, chemical contamination, and
river pollution. Republican or Democrat, Michiganders see themselves as
stewards of all of America's water no matter where it flows, and it is
no exaggeration to say that Flint changed our country.
More than 10 years after the crisis in Flint, billions of dollars
have been spent, going to American cities to swap out lead pipes,
including hundreds of millions for Michigan secured by Senators Debbie
Stabenow and Gary Peters.
The issue of aging lead pipes drew national attention. Cities in New
Jersey, Colorado, and Kentucky began replacing their aging pipes. In
2018, Michigan became the first State to require the removal of all
lead pipes. And citizens were empowered to hold elected officials
accountable for environmental negligence rather than just companies.
But all of that is, frankly, cold comfort to the people of Flint. In
their community, the damage has been done. More than a decade later, it
is still ongoing.
An entire generation of Flint's children still live with the long-
term effects of lead poisoning. It never leaves the body. There are
learning disabilities, ADHD, anxiety and depression, not to mention
PTSD. Studies estimate that roughly 3,000 children have been diagnosed
with these conditions and more. The actual number could be much higher.
Flint's schools paid a heavy price. Test scores dropped dramatically.
Special needs requests spiked. Enrollment in Flint schools plummeted
from 8,500 students in 2012 to less than 3,000 this year. More than 20
school buildings are sitting empty.
Both Brittney's kids still suffer from recurring seizures almost 12
years after the crisis began. Her son Jabari has extreme anxiety and
issues with his memory. He began struggling in school.
Around her, Brittney's friends and loved ones now have chronic,
incurable conditions. There are children whose kidneys are so damaged
that they are in constant risk of severe dehydration; women with
repeated and above-normal miscarriage rates; teenagers with hardened
heavy metal deposits in their heels and in their knees, making it
painful to sit or stand; parents with a slew of autoimmune disorders--
lupus, rheumatoid arthritis.
With every hospital stay, every specialist's visit, every missed day
of school, Brittney and her loved ones are forced to relive that
trauma--helplessness, panic, and confusion, not to mention pain in
their everyday lives.
The story is not over yet even 10 years on. They are still fighting
to be heard. Flint wants accountability. Who wouldn't? They deserve
nothing less after an American city is poisoned. People died. Children
lost their parents. People lost their siblings, neighbors, friends. So
nearly 10 years later, Flint residents have brought charges, criminal
and civil, against everyone involved in this catastrophe. They sued the
city. They sued the county. They sued the engineering firms that
switched Flint's water. They sued the State of Michigan, including Gov.
Rick Snyder at the time, for their staggering lack of oversight. They
sued the EPA, which was supposed to be the backstop for everything,
which consistently buried reports of lead poisoning instead of holding
officials accountable.
Most of these cases have been settled, with one notable exception:
the EPA. More than a decade later, the EPA is denying, deflecting, and
dragging out this cause in court. In fact, the Trump administration,
just like the Biden administration, has the ability to settle this case
without Congress or anyone else. They should either take their day in
court or settle fairly.
But it was never really about money for Flint. People wanted someone
to take responsibility.
Unfortunately, Flint residents have yet to see anything from a
settlement over the last decade. Timeliness for the rest of their
payouts are vague and always changing, and estimated amounts of initial
payments are unacceptably small.
It is possible that Flint families will not see the dollars they are
owed. No apology, no amount of assigning blame, and certainly no amount
of money can make Flint whole, but even after all they have endured
over the past decade, this community is being denied what little they
were promised, and that should make every American furious.
Now, as Flint's newest Federal Senator, I see my responsibility to
fight for Flint. It is not their job to push, prod, or hope a decade
later. Flint deserves someone who actually is up for that fight. I am
determined to follow in the footsteps of the leaders who have come
before me--former Congressman Dan Kildee, former Senator Debbie
Stabenow, Gary Peters, Jim Ananich, Mayor Sheldon Neeley, who is now
still in office. These are people who have fought for Flint in Michigan
and in this very building. I will take that torch proudly and strive to
be worthy of the appreciation of Flint residents.
[[Page S238]]
I know there will be more fights and setbacks for Flint. There will
be consistent fights for dollars, to get over promises broken, for
accountability and apologies. But I want to say here on the floor of
the Senate directly to Flint:
No matter what is coming, I have your back, and it is my
responsibility to fight for you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Chair recognizes the Senator, I
would like to note that the floor has been held open as a courtesy to
the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. I am grateful for that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank
you for holding open the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
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
[[Page S239]]
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Letter From Denver Water CEO, Alan Salazar
On behalf of Denver Water, I want to express our deep
appreciation for your collective efforts to prevent any
effort to dismantle or degrade the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR). This world-class facility plays
an absolutely vital role in climate and weather research that
has a direct impact on water management, not just in Colorado
but across the country.
Denver Water provides safe, secure, treated drinking water
to 1.5 million people in Denver and surrounding suburbs,
accounting for roughly one quarter of Colorado's population.
To fulfill its mission, 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
Denver Water necessarily relies on expertise far beyond its
own highly skilled and knowledgeable staff. NCAR is a key
source of this critical expertise.
NCAR's value to Denver Water and other water utilities in
the western United States includes flood and drought
forecasting, streamflow assessment, ongoing study of major
river systems, supercomputing, understanding of atmospheric
rivers and their role in catastrophic flooding, maintaining
open data platforms important to water supply managers,
climate modeling for longterm forecasting, and other
functions essential to managing and allocating scarce water
supplies.
We have collaborated with NCAR for many years, both
directly and indirectly, including on the preeminent report
on Colorado River science. NCAR is considered among the most
trusted and well-respected voices on weather, atmospheric and
climate science, and we consider NCAR an invaluable partner
in our role in providing a critical, life-giving resource to
the people living in the Denver region.
A more detailed snapshot of NCAR's value to western water
providers. NCAR:
Saves lives and protects property through operational
hydrologic forecasting. NCAR created and maintains WRF-Hydro,
the community hydrologic modeling system that underpins
NOAA's National Water Model--the nation's backbone for
streamflow and flood guidance across 2.7 million river
reaches. Removing NCAR would directly degrade nationwide
flood and drought intelligence that water utilities and
emergency managers rely on.
Makes active improvements to streamflow forecasting skill
for snow, runoff, and seasonal flows. NCAR's research teams
improve sub-seasonal to seasonal streamflow forecasts for the
West by integrating temperature predictions with snowpack and
precipitation--capabilities that directly inform reservoir
operations and demand management.
Produces authoritative reports and syntheses that are
crucial to understanding major river systems such as the
Colorado River. These reports integrate atmospheric science,
hydrology, and water management insights, enabling utilities
and policymakers to make informed decisions on allocation,
infrastructure, and long-term resilience. A key example of a
report co-produced by NCAR is the Colorado River Basin
Climate and Hydrology: State of the Science' report, which is
considered the preeminent scientific report on the Colorado
River.
Provides world-class computing that makes actionable water
intelligence possible. NCAR's Derecho supercomputer (19.87
petaflops, GPU-accelerated) is explicitly designed for data
assimilation, machine learning, and high-resolution modeling
used in hydrology and extreme-event prediction. Dismantling
NCAR would strand this public investment and slow or halt
models critical to water planning in complex terrain.
Advances understanding of atmospheric rivers--a major
source of risk for catastrophic flooding. NCAR advances our
understanding of atmospheric river precipitation extremes,
giving utilities the science they need for forecast-informed
reservoir operations and infrastructure design.
Sustains the open data platforms water managers depend on.
NCAR's Research Data Archive (RDA), Geoscience Data Exchange
(GDEX), and the Climate Data Guide are trusted, expert-
curated sources for re-analyses, climate indices, and down-
scaled products that are core to utility planning efforts.
Defunding NCAR would jeopardize access and stewardship of
these datasets.
Bridges research-to-operations (R20) across agencies. NCAR
is a partner with NOAA's National Water Center, collaborates
with regional centers like the Center for Western Weather and
Water Extremes (CW3E), and partners directly with local water
utilities through various workgroups and project-based
efforts. These collaborative efforts help to bring cutting-
edge coupled weather-hydrology models into practice for
western basins as well as advance science to assist
[[Page S240]]
general water management planning and operations.
Supplies climate models that utilities use for long-range
planning. NCAR's Community Earth System Model (CESM) enables
utilities and states to explore credible ranges of future
hydrologic conditions, with recent work evaluating CESM from
a water manager perspective and adding explicit human water
use modules directly relevant to western water scarcity.
Defunding NCAR would create immediate, material harm to
water supply operations, flood control operations, economic
resilience, and national competitiveness. Dismantling NCAR's
vital functions would disrupt operational forecasting, strand
modern high performance computing investments, endanger
crucial water management datasets, and harm research-to-
operations collaborations that water utilities depend on
every day.
Dismantling an organization of such importance to water
supply, weather forecasting, drought and flood preparation,
would make it harder and more expensive to plan for the
challenges we face today and into the future, and will likely
end up costing the American people more money due to water
supply disruptions and the reduced ability to anticipate and
plan for extreme weather events.
I am confident that we at Denver Water are not alone in our
concern about the future of NCAR. The importance of NCAR to
water planning and delivery across the country will be
compromised by this proposal.
Thank you for your efforts. We look forward to working with
you to ensure that NCAR's important work continues without
disruption.
Other statements in support of the Arkansas Valley Conduit:
Norman Noe, manager South Swink Water Company: ``The
Arkansas Valley Conduit is important to South Swink not only
to meet radionuclide standards and compliance orders, but
also it would give us another source of water other than the
deep wells we rely on.''
Kevin Karney, former Otero County Commissioner and
Southeastern District Director: ``We've waited for so many
years for the Arkansas Valley Conduit to be built. It's
really the only way to resolve long-standing water quality
and water supply issues in the Lower Arkansas Valley, and the
longer we delay it the more expensive it becomes. Now that we
finally have some momentum, this is not the time to stall the
AVC project.''
Rick Jones, manager of May Valley Water Company: ``The
Arkansas Valley Conduit is something we've been looking at to
solve our issues with compliance with EPA standards. The EPA
has been breathing down our necks and the AVC is the way to
solve this issue.''
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.
[[Page S241]]
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
[[Page S242]]
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
[[Page S243]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Reserving the right to object, let me first say that I
appreciate the advocacy from the Senators from Colorado for the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, an NSF-funded research and
development center in Boulder.
The bill before us includes robust funding for the National Science
Foundation. That has been a top priority of mine and of many other
members of the Appropriations Committee.
Consistent with longstanding practice, the bill does not have a
carve-out for NCAR, nor any of the other NSF research facilities around
the globe, and it does not direct grant-making to certain activities.
This longstanding precedent is designed to preserve NSF's autonomy in
funding decisions and empowers the big foundation to prioritize
scientific needs.
Let me emphasize that nothing--nothing--in this bill precludes
continued support for operation of the center.
This is a carefully negotiated package that passed the House of
Representatives with an overwhelming vote last week. Any amendment that
would send the package back to the House would make its fate uncertain.
We would risk a continuing resolution or, even worse, another
disastrous government shutdown at the essential Agencies funded in this
package.
Therefore, I must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I am going to talk for a moment
about my path towards science and what it meant.
A lot of people know my mother was widowed twice before she turned
40. My father died when I was 8. I was the youngest kid. I had really
thick glasses and acne, and I was let's just say marginalized when I
was in third and fourth grade, the butt of many jokes. I was bullied on
a regular basis.
But it is funny, as I went through school, I did have this natural
curiosity. I mean, I loved sports, but it didn't keep me from doing
schoolwork around discovery. And there is a whole peripheral culture in
most schools--the high schools and the middle schools I went to--where
the kids that are the nerds--I guess I would call myself a nerd back
then--kind of hung out together, and they were also the people who were
into the arts or into music, into tech.
It is really only in the last 25 years that that peripheral part of
most colleges and universities became the foundation of--or I should
say the fulcrum of our economic growth, and that is the beginning of
the age of technology back in the 1990s.
We are here today because before the holidays, the Trump
administration announced that they were going to dismantle the National
Center for Atmospheric Research based in Boulder, as my colleague
Senator Bennet so elegantly described. I am going to go through some of
that, reiterate some of what he said, just because I think it is that
important that we hear it more than once.
In our office--my office, Senator Bennet's office--we are determined
to do everything we can to stand up to this administration and their
actions that harm Coloradans and I think in many ways harm the country.
Our demand is simple: Put language into the appropriations bills that
guarantees full funding for NCAR.
I understand the Senator from Maine's objection to--in history and
certainly in recent history, there has been no precedent for this, but
in recent history, there has been no precedent for a President to go
back and tell the National Science Foundation: You have to rescind this
money from that specific office of research.
NCAR isn't just a research center, as Senator Bennet described, it is
a national resource. Obviously, this administration has a different
view.
When Russell Vought took to social media to announce his plan, he
called NCAR ``one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the
country.'' Now, I am not sure that Mr. Vought knows exactly what NCAR
does. If he did, I think he would understand the irony in that tweet.
NCAR quite literally powers our country's alarm system around weather.
It is our watchdog for extreme storms, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes,
the things that cause floods.
Every single American, whether they are aware of it or not, relies on
NCAR data. Most of them--this administration is included--aren't really
aware of it. So here are a few more reasons why all of us should want
NCAR to stick around:
If you are an American who likes to know whether a tornado is headed
your way; if you are one of the people who appreciate an early text
alert before you get an oncoming winter storm--let me say we have had
far too few of those this year; if you would prefer to be on high
ground instead of stuck in your car during a flash flood; if you like
to look at maps to show you where and when extreme weather is going to
hit, then you need NCAR. If you like any of those things, you are
directly benefiting from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Here is where the administration gets it really wrong. If we are
going to call anything alarming, it is our weather patterns--wildfires,
tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, severe weather in all forms, winter
storms. They are all becoming more intense and less predictable.
I, along with many scientists, refer to it as climate change. Back
when I was in graduate school, we called it the greenhouse effect. But
to call it a hoax or just extreme weather doesn't change what is
happening right outside your front door.
We have had less snowfall in Colorado this winter than in any year in
recorded history. Now, if you are going to get rid of NCAR, you are
going to take away that opportunity to use history and the facts from
recorded history. It is NCAR's job to use science to make extreme
weather at least somewhat predictable and to make sure that we can save
American lives and property.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research built the backbone of
American weather forecasting models that are now used all around the
world. Their weather prediction system is used by NOAA, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is used by the National
Weather Service, the Department of Defense, emergency managers in
pretty much every State, and all the universities worldwide to
[[Page S244]]
predict hurricanes, blizzards, floods, and wildfire behavior.
When we track hurricanes today, our 3- to 5-day forecast is as
accurate as a 1-day forecast was back in the 1990s. That is from
research, because NCAR research helped improve global radar systems.
Take Hurricane Sandy in 2012. High resolution models helped
forecasters predict the hurricane's unusual path a whole week before
landfall. That extra time meant emergency crews could get a head start,
could evacuate entire communities and prepare for that storm's
landfall. It wouldn't have been possible even a decade before.
Back home in Colorado, NCAR's fire weather research and modeling
tools are critical for wildfire comparatives. NCAR's research helped us
understand how extreme winds and local weather provided the fuel for
the 2021 Marshall fire--the single most destructive fire in Colorado
history. Almost 1,100 homes were destroyed. We vowed that would never
happen again, but we can't make good on that promise without NCAR. Its
research is actively improving wildfire prediction not just in Colorado
but across the country.
NCAR is our safety net, and dismantling it to combat so-called
climate alarmism is the policy equivalent of sticking your fingers in
your ears and yelling ``la, la, la'' to drown out the tornado that is
rearranging your living room. Without NCAR, our country isn't safer; we
are just more unprepared.
NCAR also conducts the research on space weather. This allows us to
know what threats there are for our satellites, especially our GPS
satellites, which are crucial for the health of our infrastructure, not
to mention our weather forecasting.
It is not just weather; it is also our national security. Without
NCAR, our military defense systems could take a huge hit. NCAR has been
central to President Trump's military adventure. On January 3, when the
U.S. military launched 150 aircraft across the Western Hemisphere to
capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, they knew in advance that
visibility would be clear.
Members of Delta Force had been training for weeks under the exact
weather conditions they would be operating in. Conditions had to be
perfect because there was a zero margin for error. How did they know
that the conditions would be clear on January 3? The National Center
for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's scientists developed the advanced
weather prediction system the Pentagon relies on, known as the Global
Climatology Analysis Tool or GCAT.
To put it simply, however you feel about the President's mission, a
small failure--even the smallest failure would have been putting
American lives at risk. NCAR's technology helps make our military the
strongest in the world. It is a part of that strength.
The irony here is that this administration is too focused on
retribution--in this case, to our State of Colorado and our Governor--
to actually understand the consequences of really what is going to be
the consequence of what they are doing.
U.S. military success and our country's ability to keep Americans
safe from natural disaster hinge on NCAR. This administration might as
well declare war on smoke detectors in our homes or carbon monoxide
alarms because those critical detection systems function in much the
same way that NCAR's research does.
This administration's war on our premier weather research center
isn't a stand-alone attack, and very sadly, it is part of a broader
campaign to, well, spite our State. The President and his
administration have set their sights on Colorado to settle what they
perceive as a political score. He wants Colorado to release one of his
most fervent supporters, Tina Peters, a former clerk and recorder of
Mesa County. Ms. Peters is currently in prison after she was convicted
on State charges of tampering with Colorado's election equipment in
2020.
This wasn't just a case of election denialism or spreading conspiracy
theories; Ms. Peters is in prison because she tampered with the
election equipment she took an oath to protect. She was tried and
prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and convicted by her
peers, a majority Republican jury, in Mesa County.
Now the President is pressuring our Governor to release her and in
the process, hurting Coloradans to do it.
We have one strong message in that Colorado is not going to give in
to a bully or bow to a King. We believe in the rule of law, and we are
going to fight to protect the traditional notion of American democracy.
Even worse, most of Coloradans who these attacks harm have no clue
who Tina Peters actually is. Many of the people most severely subject
to the consequence of these decisions are Republicans.
And NCAR is just one of the recent targets.
As part of his campaign against Colorado, President Trump denied
emergency disaster relief to help families rebuild after devastating
wildfires and floods. He canceled millions of dollars for clean energy.
He slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in childcare assistance for
families and denied 50,000 rural Coloradans clean drinking water.
Let me say it again. The President of the United States denied
emergency funding for American citizens to help them rebuild their
lives after wildfires and flooding that, for many of them, destroyed
the lives they knew this past summer.
This is not a game. These are people's lives. These are our
constituents' lives.
We can start with the President's second attack on FEMA funding, in
August, when the Elk and Lee fires tore across the Western Slope of
Colorado, burning more than 152,000 acres of land. Farmers and ranchers
lost thousands of acres they were depending on for grazing and for
farming. The fire also damaged electrical infrastructure that
businesses and families depend on, not just to do their business but to
live at home. They depend on it for energy.
Just weeks later, floods ripped through more communities in western
Colorado, including La Plata, Archuleta, and Mineral County. Families
lost homes. Businesses lost everything. The floods even destroyed
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, risking people's safety.
Residents have been left to pick up the broken pieces of their lives
and try to rebuild. Colorado estimates the fires cost $27 million of
damage, and flooding cost at least $13 million more.
Unfortunately, Colorado is no stranger to major disasters and the
struggle to rebuild the lives hurt in the aftermath. It is, sadly, a
part of our way of life. We band together, we lift each other up, and
we rebuild back better than it was before. We rebuild stronger.
I will always remember the horrible wildfires and floods our State
experienced when I was Governor. I remember visiting Lyons after the
floods of 2013--the worst floods in the history of our State--and
flying over that area in a helicopter and seeing people marooned on the
roofs of their houses or their businesses. Some of them were there for
a couple of days waiting to get help.
I saw and heard how neighbors and small business owners reached out
and helped each other. They helped get each other through the worst
hard times of their lives. They cleaned their stores out, their shops.
They rebuilt their homes. It was a herculean effort, and our Federal
Government stepped up with emergency FEMA help that could make it
possible. They don't pay for everything. They pay for a very small
amount, but it is a crucial piece of the recovery.
That is why President Trump's decision to reject Colorado's disaster
request without any objective reason and to withhold resources that
would help our communities recover--that is why it is so infuriating,
not just to me and Senator Bennet but to so many people across our
State and across the country. I mean, why in God's name would the
Federal Government turn its back on its own citizens who have gone
through, in many cases, the worst hard time of their lives?
Why should Coloradans not get the same support to rebuild their lives
that the Trump administration had already delivered to the people of
Alaska or North Dakota, following the natural disasters in their
communities? Because people in Colorado opt to vote by mail, like in
many red States, and President Trump hates vote-by-mail? I am not sure
that is true. That is certainly not how America should work.
The President's third target was our booming energy economy. This
October, the administration canceled $7.5
[[Page S245]]
billion in clean energy grants in blue States. Colorado's Noble Energy
lost $550 million in funding that had already passed into law and had
already been appropriated. The rationale? He said the Democrats had a
``Green New Scam.''
I would really like to ask the President: Is making energy more
efficient a scam and were all those grants--the majority of which went
to red States, States that had a Republican Governor and a Republican
general assembly--were they part of the scam? What about lowering
energy prices so families can heat their homes this winter without
sacrificing the ability to afford their kids' health insurance? Is that
a scam?
What happened to the Republicans' so-called energy emergency?
Canceling billions of dollars in energy projects ready to go or very
close to ready to go, or in some cases almost complete, while
disrupting much needed updates to our energy grid is going to increase
prices. This is going to hurt American families. It is lunacy. It makes
no sense.
Many millions of people voted for this President because they were
struggling to afford their lives and they heard that promise to lower
prices. But you don't lower energy prices by punishing communities and
canceling energy projects that are almost complete. That wastes the
money that has already been spent.
The fourth step on this revenge list--this revenge tour against
Colorado--is a direct hit to our kids and to our families. At the
beginning of this month, the administration tried to freeze $10 billion
of Federal funding for childcare, for Colorado and four other States--
again, blue States.
Let me say this again. While prices are already increasing across the
board, the President of the United States is cutting childcare services
and other resources for the most vulnerable families. Childcare. No
matter how you cut it, going after childcare services for American
families and for Colorado families is just plain cruel. Even worse,
these services are for families that need it the most. More than 1.4
million children around the country depend on those programs. In
Colorado, these programs help more than 27,000 children get childcare
so their parents can work.
The administration has tried to claim that this is about rooting out
fraud and waste, but there is no record in Colorado of fraud to justify
their actions. We have safeguards in place to prevent fraud at that
scale and to ensure that Federal funds actually go toward the care of
children. Parents have enough to worry about. Now they have to figure
out how to keep their jobs, deal with rising costs, and care for their
children. The result? Families are going to lose the support that helps
them keep financial stability.
Thankfully, a Federal judge has temporarily blocked the
administration's attack on childcare. But that has not stopped this
President in the past, and we are not going to stop pushing back.
That brings us to the President's other target: clean drinking water
for rural Coloradans.
In certain parts of our State, we have high levels of radioactive
minerals, heavy metals. And in some cases, this is from waste. In some
cases, this is natural. But it makes the drinking water unsafe.
With one stroke of a pen, President Trump used the first veto of his
second term to stand in the way of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a 130-
mile water project and infrastructure project that would bring clean
drinking water to 50,000 Americans in Southeast Colorado. This is the
first time a bill has gone through both the House and the Senate on a
unanimous basis. It passed the Senate unanimously. It passed the House
unanimously. But for the first time--for the first time since President
Johnson--a President vetoed a bill that was passed by both houses
unanimously--for the first time since President Johnson. I am not
talking about Lyndon Johnson. I am going back to the Civil War, to
Andrew Johnson. That is the last time this happened.
It is a decision that really does defy logic, but it fits a troubling
pattern. While parts of this administration are spending time on
personal grievances and political beefs, the basic needs of American
families are being treated as afterthoughts, and, in many cases, the
prices soar.
The Arkansas Valley Conduit has been in the works for 60 years--
almost 65 years--after President John Kennedy came to Pueblo, CO, in
1962 and gave a rousing speech and promised that the Federal Government
would see it through.
For six decades, Colorado leaders from both parties have fought to
keep that promise. We are now in the final stages of the project, with
the Arkansas Valley Conduit as the remaining piece. We secured more
than $500 million for the project from our historic bipartisan
infrastructure law, and we broke ground on the conduit--the remaining
portions of the conduit--in 2023.
We worked with Republican Representative Lauren Boebert to introduce
the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act to keep construction on
track and to lower costs. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate
unanimously; this bipartisan bill passed the House unanimously--both,
last year. That means every single Senator and every single House
Member was good with it.
But the President vetoed it. I am not sure why anyone would veto a
unanimous, bipartisan rural water project, unless they had a pretty
serious beef, especially when our bill and the project would actually
help the President keep his campaign promises.
The completion of the Arkansas Valley Conduit would mean water for
our rural schools in communities like Lamar, which are teaching the
next generation. It would mean water for our local hospitals in towns
like La Junta, which keep Coloradans healthy.
Trump has left these communities out to dry--communities that have
been waiting for clean drinking water for over 60 years, communities
that overwhelmingly voted for him. If you go look at these counties,
they are a large proportion of who voted for President Trump in 2024.
When a President puts a political grievance against the Governor of a
State, against the working people that did their very best to elect
him, against the schools and hospitals and ranchers that supported him,
he isn't ``shaking up'' Washington. He is undermining the very people
he swore to serve, and it is working people in rural communities who
are paying the price.
If members of either party wanted to actually deliver for their
constituents, then the best path forward would have been clear.
Congress could have stood up to this intimidation, honored the promise
that 60 years ago came from Washington, and overridden this veto.
But, last week, the House refused to do so. It was Washington at its
worst.
Now, rural Colorado is going to pay the price. Southeast Colorado was
the target this month, but it could be your community tomorrow. I wish
the President could spend some time in Southeast Colorado. If you go
back and look at the book, the worst hard times--talking about the
Great Depression and the dust storms--the far northwest part of
Oklahoma and the far southeast part of Colorado were the hardest hit.
And that durability and willingness to withstand the worst hardships
and keep on keeping on is what really sets Southeast Colorado apart.
They were still the target this month, but it could be any community
across the country tomorrow.
President Trump's cuts aren't limited to Colorado or blue States. He
seemingly made it a goal to hinder America's leadership in science and
innovation. He has fired, literally, thousands of scientists from our
leading government Agencies, like the National Renewable Energy Lab in
Golden, or NREL, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
in Boulder.
And in the face of natural disasters, he has even shuttered NOAA
facilities. That is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. He shuttered their facilities and fired scientists
there, weakening not just Colorado but the entire Nation's ability to
respond to wildfires or to track the West's worsening drought.
The Trump administration also slashed funding for the National
Institutes of Health, which is having a devastating impact on medical
research projects in every State of this country. They left veterans
battling PTSD who were beginning to find relief in clinical trials.
They stripped resources from
[[Page S246]]
critical research to improve the lives of people with Down syndrome.
They cut support groups for LGBTQ persons struggling with mental health
issues.
We can't be surprised that the President doesn't place a high
priority in science and research. He has never shown a great respect or
support for it.
Back when I graduated, in 1979, with my master's in earth and
environmental sciences--we called it geology back in those days--I
published peer review papers. And from that process and that
experience, I have a reverence for the scientific method. It is not
always right. The science doesn't always get it right. I am not saying
there haven't been glaring mistakes in the history of science. But
science always points us in the right direction, and it helps us
determine when and where those mistakes are and how to rectify them.
Mark Kelly told me when I first got here--even though he was an
engineer, I told him he was a scientist as well, and he said: No, no.
You are the only one in here who has actually done experiments and then
published peer-reviewed papers.
As I said, science can sometimes surprise us. It is always evolving.
It is always trying to figure out what is next, what the next frontier
is. It is why the field relies on constant evaluation and research to
make new discoveries or deepen our understanding of some of the most
complex problems facing the world. I also know that leading with
science helps us get the most accurate information we can--not always
perfect but the most accurate information we can get. So it really is
frightening when the administration has shown a bias toward elevating
people who peddle disinformation, and they sow doubt into every level
of settled science.
Cuts to science funding are going to cause long-term and profound
damage to our standing in the world in terms of innovation. How can we
expect to beat China in the fight--in the race to succeed at AI or to
find a cure for cancer or to remain the world's strongest economy if we
are not investing in science?
Science has been the foundation of every aspect of our economy. If
our scientists are fleeing to other countries--and we are seeing this
now at an increasing rate--if our scientists are fleeing to other
countries that recognize the economic and national security value of
scientific research, what is next?
Not only are our scientists leaving to work in other countries, but
our students are choosing different careers because they don't see a
safe, reliable future in science. With the administration's cuts to
research funding, some of those folks who are finishing their PhD
research are now stopped. They won't get that degree that in some cases
they have spent 3 or 4 or 5 years working on. We can't train the next
generation of scientists, engineers, and innovators without having that
upward flow.
President Trump's Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is an example of someone who in many
cases seems willing to overlook facts and overlook settled science. One
of his most anti-scientific claims--that autism is caused by childhood
vaccines--is a claim that has been spread within communities for
decades, but it is all based on one single paper that was published way
back in 1988. That paper has been retracted for years. There have been
hundreds of studies investigating the link between autism and the
measles vaccine ever since, and they have found no--let me reiterate.
They have found zero connection between vaccines and the cause of
autism.
It is settled science. Vaccines are not only extremely safe but
extremely effective. Every year, they save millions of lives around the
globe, effectively eliminating some of the worst diseases, like polio,
and we are already making considerable progress toward a vaccine for
some of the other really debilitating diseases, like HIV and AIDS.
In the last 100 years, our country's life expectancy has increased by
30 years, and 25 of those 30 years have been attributed to public
health intervention, including clean drinking water and widespread
vaccine adoption. So 25 of those 30 years of our improved life
expectancy came from those investments in science.
We should recognize and accept that vaccines have had a huge impact
on all of our abilities to lead healthy lives and to get out of
childhood being spared from diseases that in previous generations would
have killed us.
Some of the damage from the disinformation about vaccines is almost
impossible to undo. Why do some accept the results of one debunked
paper rather than the conclusions of the hundreds of studies that have
been conducted since in careful, measured processes? I mean, they have
even tried to link Tylenol to autism with, again, no conclusive proof.
People who peddle vaccine skepticism are preying upon a parent's very
rational fears. These skeptics are trying to advance their own
conspiracy theories. Parents are trying their hardest to keep their
kids safe and healthy, and I think it is irresponsible for people to
plague them with misinformation and what is not real science when the
science has been settled for decades. The measles vaccine is safe, and
it doesn't cause autism.
We can't let ourselves backslide in the number of children getting
vaccinated, but that is what is happening. President Trump and R.F.K.,
Jr., are moving full speed ahead in putting the health of our children
and communities at risk by implementing health changes based on
conspiracy theories and not science.
Measles cases are now higher than they were in 1991, with there being
over 2,000 confirmed cases nationwide. We have literally slid backward
in the progress of eradicating measles. The U.S. eliminated the disease
in 2000, but due to vaccine skepticism and vaccine rates going down, we
have had a resurgence.
Mr. Kennedy seems unfazed that our kids are getting sick. He fired
the top, nonpartisan public health officials at the CDC because they
wouldn't adhere to his agenda. I asked two of them, in a Senate hearing
back in September, what keeps them up at night when Mr. Kennedy is at
the helm of America's public health. They both said the same thing: the
next pandemic.
In President Trump's first term, which was at the height of the
COVID-19 pandemic, Operation Warp Speed helped bring vaccines to the
public in record time. It was a remarkable success, and President Trump
deserves credit for that. The National Institutes of Health estimates
that Operation Warp Speed saved 140,000 lives by speeding up the
development of the vaccines by 5 months.
It is not if the next pandemic comes but when. We will need a robust
Federal response and a thorough preparedness plan, one guided by actual
science. Otherwise, we will endanger lives and the health of Americans.
Reproductive health care--they are getting at that too. Back when I
was Governor, we made free and low-cost birth control accessible to
every Coloradan--low-cost, reversible contraception. We reduced
unwanted pregnancies by nearly 60 percent. Those were pregnancies that
were unwanted, but you were also looking in many cases at avoiding what
would have been abortions.
Now this administration is doing everything it can to eliminate the
last remaining protections. They are threatening access to
mifepristone--a medication that has been proven to be safe and
effective for decades, especially when someone has had a miscarriage as
it allows them to deal with that safely at home.
Colorado understands the importance of reproductive freedom. Women
deserve the right to make their own reproductive health care decisions
without having politicians or the government telling them what to do
with their bodies.
All of this comes at a time when some MAGA Republicans passed their
One Big Beautiful Bill last summer. Some of us call it the ``Big Ugly
Betrayal Act.'' The bill cut more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and
the Affordable Care Act--more than $1 trillion. The results are going
to be clear, and they are already becoming clear. Over time, 15 million
Americans are likely going to lose their health coverage. Again, about
240,000 of them are living in Colorado. Hundreds and hundreds of
hospitals and nursing homes around the country are at risk of closing.
Many of them are in Colorado.
Since both sides--well, certainly Republicans--have refused to work
together to extend the ACA enhanced premium tax credits, 20 million
more Americans have been hit with some of
[[Page S247]]
the largest price hikes in recent memory for their health insurance. We
have heard from Colorado families across the State that their monthly
healthcare premiums have doubled, tripled, and in some cases
quadrupled. In many cases, that is higher than their mortgages now.
This is unsustainable and is crushing many Americans and many
Coloradoans. It means that working families are being forced to choose
between putting food on the table or their healthcare or, even worse,
dropping their insurance altogether.
Without a doubt, this is a crisis. It seems that the other side has
realized that this will be devastating to their constituents.
Hopefully, we can find some compromise to resolve this.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a clean 3-year
extension of the ACA enhanced premium tax credits in a bipartisan vote.
Yet, yesterday, it got blocked here in the Senate.
Soaring healthcare costs are squeezing working families in ways we
couldn't have imagined a few years ago. We should be making it easier
for Americans to get healthcare that is affordable, accessible, and
universal and not harder.
It is worth remembering why they made all of these cuts to healthcare
in the first place, why they made all of the cuts to research funding
or to childcare grants, why they fired so many government employees. It
is because they wanted to pass a budget and find a way to pay for $4.5
trillion in tax breaks, most of which go to the largest corporations
and to some of the wealthiest people in this country. To do this, they
cut food stamps and they cut healthcare in order to pass the largest
transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the history of the
country. I think that speaks volumes as to the values before us.
We are not going to let some of these actions go down without a
fight.
It has been clear from the beginning that President Trump's goal in
his second term is shock and awe--to bombard the American people with
wall-to-wall coverage of every aspect of every decision that they make.
They are trying to attack anything that is the status quo. I think he
believes that this constant chaos will drown out all voices of
opposition. Well, we are still here, we are still fighting, and we are
not quitting.
This past year, we have seen the administration send masked armed
agents--without identification--into communities to separate families
and to pull people off the streets and into unmarked vans. We have seen
them target people strictly based on the color of their skin or on the
accents they may have when they speak.
In the past week, the footage out of Minneapolis and out of Portland,
OR, was truly horrifying. An ICE officer shot a woman, Renee Good from
Colorado Springs, apparently in cold blood. We are going to argue the
legal aspects of this case, but she was shot, to the best of our
knowledge, while she was trying to have her voice heard that what was
being done to her and to the communities in this country was wrong.
Our office has been working tirelessly trying to help families who
have been desperately searching for loved ones who have been arrested
by ICE. We have shown up repeatedly at the ICE detention facility in
Aurora to press officials on the concerns about the conditions of the
facility, on the delays in communication, on the irregular process
changes and on the reports of ICE pressuring detainees--some of them
minors--to voluntarily deport instead of proceeding through the
judicial process.
We are also working on legislation with Senator Cortez Masto to
redirect the excessive increase in Federal funding for ICE that was
snuck into the Big Beautiful Bill to triple ICE's budget, and we are
working to redirect that money to actually keep our communities safe.
When President Trump shut down the government last fall, he went
after the most vulnerable in this country, but we were resilient in
raising awareness of the healthcare crisis and in fighting back
against--we have to call them--the heartless SNAP cuts, which is the
nutrition support for many of the neediest people in our communities.
Both times, Republicans put forward a continuing resolution to keep
business as usual, but we pushed back in every way we could.
Back in May, when Republicans were on an ill-fated mission to sell
off public lands to the highest bidder to supposedly lower the public
debt, we fought back hard and got them to abandon that plan. Some
things just shouldn't be for sale, and one of them is our public lands.
Even as they continue to try to sneak in different pieces of
legislation, we have tried to stop them every time, but we know that
President Trump and his MAGA allies aren't going to stop. That is why
they have nominated Steve Pearce to lead the Bureau of Land Management.
The BLM manages many of our Federal lands and is the caretaker for some
of the most breathtaking and sacred landscapes. Mr. Pearce, on the
other hand, has proudly advocated to sell off these public lands.
I will say once again--I have said it a bunch of times--Colorado's
public lands are not for sale, and they never will be for sale. So I
will certainly vote no on Mr. Pearce, and I will be fighting his
nomination every step of the way.
All of this brings us back to the final question: How did we get
here?
It was the NCAR disaster relief, the canceling of clean energy
projects, freezing childcare funding, the demolition of the Arkansas
Valley Conduit, and the relentless attacks on science.
The President was elected, as I said earlier, because Americans
thought he was going to make their lives better. One year later,
families are still wondering when that relief is going to come. The
cuts to NCAR, to clean energy and to clean drinking water, the cuts to
childcare and to financial assistance for Colorado families--all this
does nothing to improve anyone's quality of life. It doesn't make
groceries cheaper. It doesn't bring down the cost of rent or the
utilities cost at the end of the month.
To be frank, we have pretty much completely lost the narrative, the
plot line of the administration. They seem to be more focused on
building ballrooms and getting involved in wars without a necessary
plan in place.
If you want to talk about how to get and create a forever war, that
would be to depose a leader of a foreign country without a plan of what
the transition is going to be.
And they have been vetoing unanimous, bipartisan legislation for
rural water infrastructure projects that actually help working people.
And that brings us back to NCAR. The work the National Center for
Atmospheric Research does is critical. Senator Bennet talked about that
at great length. I have talked about it. It informs so much of the
weather data and scientific research that makes our country safer, both
militarily and in terms of natural disasters. We can't let the
dismantling of NCAR be just a blip in the news.
Time and time again, the President makes critical announcements, but
before we can even digest them, he has moved on to the next reckless
action. This pattern leaves everyday Americans to pick up the pieces.
The consequences permeate the fabric of our society.
Dismantling science and cutting funding for the National Center for
Atmospheric Research harms every single American and diminishes the
opportunities that we will be able to create for the next generation.
It threatens our safety. It threatens our economy. It threatens our
national security. It threatens our livelihoods.
We can't just stand by because of one more crazy thing that comes out
one way or the other. We need to all be determined to do everything we
can to stand up to these attacks on science, and I think that starts
with standing up for the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Senator Bennet and I have a simple demand: Put language into the
appropriations bill that guarantees the full funding for NCAR through
the end of this fiscal year.
That was money that was appropriated to the National Science
Foundation with the full expectation that that is where they would
allocate it, and they did allocate it there. Once they have done that,
the President should not be able to come back in and tell them to--I
don't know if ``deallocate'' is the right word, but ``rescind'' the
money, if you want to use legal terminology.
[[Page S248]]
It should be abundantly clear that the work of the National Center
for Atmospheric Research impacts every one of us. Again, it saves
lives. It protects property. It boosts our economy. It creates the
foundation on which our future economy is going to be based.
We have heard countless stories from our constituents about how
important it is. We have heard from family members of NCAR researchers
who don't want the work of their loved ones to be thrown out, families
who will struggle to support someone who got laid off at NCAR, students
whose work relies on NCAR data who may be in the process of finishing
their Ph.D. We have heard from scientists who recognize this
international crown jewel of research.
We have heard from them all, and I brought just a few to read today.
One constituent wrote:
My father has worked at NCAR for 20 years . . . and I'm
seriously concerned about its continued existence. I voted
for President Trump in the latest election but feel this
attack on NCAR is more about a personal attack on Colorado
for being a largely blue State than a legitimate action for
the betterment of the American people.
My Dad has worked tirelessly for this place for decades,
putting in long hours and taking on more responsibilities
than he ever bargained for to keep up the work that he loves
being a part of. Please fight for NCAR, fight with all you've
got, it means so much to the people who have spent their
life's work to keep it going.
Another constituent, this one from Lafayette, CO, wrote:
NCAR is important for Colorado--and the nation--and
provides not only top notch science but employs close to
1,000 people in my community.
My husband has worked for NCAR for over 16 years as a
scientist and administrator. The loss of his job would be
devastating to our family. We would not be able to help
support our two college-aged daughters. My husband carries
our health insurance. I have stage 4 breast cancer and having
to find new health insurance--that is affordable--would be
very difficult [and quite possibly impossible] and would
[certainly] threaten my current health status.
Another constituent from Glenwood Springs wrote:
I have worked with NCAR scientists and educators for all of
my carer as a science teacher here in Colorado. I now live in
Glenwood Springs, retired, and I think NCAR is one of the
jewels of our state. I feel the same way about the former
[National Renewable Energy Laboratory].
And then last--I can't wrap it up more succinctly than this
constituent:
I am writing as a constituent and a scientist to ask you to
stop the dismantling of the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado, as announced by OMB Director
Russ Vought. NCAR is the beating heart of climate research in
the US. I grew up in Boulder and I am one of the scientists
who has worked at NCAR. My current research depends on NCAR.
My future career opportunities in Colorado will be decimated
if NCAR is dismantled.
NCAR provides essential forecasting support to our nation,
such as: Partnerships with airlines to provide in-flight
turbulence and icing guidance--Collaboration with reinsurance
companies to assess risks of wildfires, heat waves, and
hurricanes--Forecasting capabilities that inform farmers,
truckers, and other critical components of our economy about
severe weather disruptions.
Dismantling NCAR is a wasteful exercise that could cost
lives. Please do everything you can to keep our community
safe and don't let NCAR be dissolved.
I would like to urge Congress to stand up and protect this critical
scientific research, to stand up for American innovation, and to
protect American families.
Amendment No. 4153
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.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). Is there objection?
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I
appreciate the advocacy from the Senators from Colorado for the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in their State and, in the
case of Senator Hickenlooper, his advocacy in support of scientific
research in general.
It is important for Members to know that the bill before us includes
robust funding for the National Science Foundation. This has not only
been a top priority of mine but of many members of the Appropriations
Committee.
Consistent with longstanding practice, the bill does not have a
carve-out for NCAR nor for any of the National Science Foundation's
research facilities around the globe, and it does not direct grant-
making to certain activities. This longstanding precedent is designed
to preserve the National Science Foundation's autonomy in funding
decision and empowers the Agency to prioritize scientific needs.
Nothing in this bill precludes continued support for NCAR. This is a
carefully negotiated package that passed the House of Representatives
overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way last week. Any amendment would send
the package back to the House, where its fate would be uncertain. We
would risk a continuing resolution or, even worse, another disastrous
shutdown at the essential Agencies funded in this package. Therefore,
Mr. President, I must object, and I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairs Collins and Cole,
Ranking Member DeLauro, as well as our fantastic subcommittee leaders
and all of our staffs for working so hard to put this package together.
This vote is about returning power to the American people, protecting
the funding that they count on, and making sure Congress--not Trump and
Vought--decide how taxpayer dollars get spent.
We have, of course, the package of bipartisan bills, the product of
hard, serious negotiations that reject devastating Trump cuts that
would cut scientific research, raise energy prices, and make our
communities less safe and prosperous. These bills protect key
investments in scientific research, our Tribes, our public lands, and
so much else, and they reassert the power of Congress to make our
Nation's funding decisions--Congress, that is us.
So let's choose to exercise our power and make sure our States'
voices are heard by passing these bills now and getting them signed
into law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will withhold my remarks until after
the vote.
Amendment Withdrawn
Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 4208.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
Vote on H.R. 6938
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I know of no further debate at this time
on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third
time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Ms. COLLINS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) and the Senator from Florida (Mrs.
Moody).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Hagerty) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]
YEAS--82
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Justice
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Merkley
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Murray
Ossoff
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
[[Page S249]]
Rosen
Rounds
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--15
Bennet
Booker
Hickenlooper
Johnson
Kim
Lee
Lummis
Markey
Murphy
Padilla
Paul
Sanders
Schiff
Scott (FL)
Warren
NOT VOTING--3
Hagerty
Moody
Peters
The bill (H.R. 6938) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Maine.
____________________