A joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared with respect to energy.

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today to say what every New Mexican I know can easily tell you: Americans are reeling from an affordability crisis. It doesn't matter if you are talking about the price of groceries or rent or healthcare, everybody is stretched thin.

They need help and they need it now and they need it from Congress and the President. But help is not what the President and his administration are delivering. Instead of working to lower healthcare and energy costs for American families, the President, his administration, and Republicans in Congress are choosing to drive those costs through the roof.

They repeal energy tax credits making it harder and more expensive to build and deliver energy to the grid or even just to put solar panels on your own roof. They made it more expensive to make your home energy efficient. They imposed steep tariffs on steel and aluminum, driving up energy costs, infrastructure costs, and they are blocking energy from coming onto the grid.

Now, if it feels chaotic, it is probably because it is. They are trying to sow chaos. While all of the numbers and

projects and policies float around in the headlines, the real story, the real impact is in your budget. It is in your electric bill.

According to the Energy Information Administration, residential electricity bills have already increased by almost 10 percent since President Trump took office. Household energy costs are expected to increase by another $170 annually by 2035 thanks to tax credit repeals and tariffs.

And when it comes to the impacts on energy supply, it is the same story. As of August, clean power estimated that 25,000 megawatts--that is like 25 gigawatts, it is 25 nuclear powerplants' worth of energy-- 25,000 megawatts of planned energy generation have been lost to projects being canceled or delayed since the President's election.

That is more than enough power for 8.4 million homes in the United States. And I have bad news: It is about to get a whole lot worse. That is because President Trump is strangling the energy supply we badly need to drive down costs for everyone.

From canceling energy projects to withholding energy permits, to issuing illegal stop work orders on fully permitted generation projects, President Trump is waging a war on affordable, American-made energy. Most recently, that came in the form of canceled energy projects. Last week, the Trump administration unlawfully canceled nearly $8 billion in Federal investments in 223 energy projects across 21 States, including 10 in the State of New Mexico.

In Albuquerque, two projects by the same company were targeted. They have already had to make their first round of layoffs. If these awards are not restored in the next 45 days, they will be forced to lay off 50 percent of their workforce. These are people's lives we are talking about.

And their local partners and collaborators who were anticipating growth opportunities because of the investment are being left in the cold. In Socorro, NM, one technical university lost funding for four projects--$67 million in total. One project alone will impact 36 student researchers, all of whom now have to search for new funding or lose their research roles altogether.

In Fruitland, NM, another canceled project could have unlocked the key to keeping 600 people working. In Taos, NM, more chaos is playing out. Funding for Kit Carson Electric Cooperative's project to provide a battery energy storage system and microgrids to rural communities, canceled.

This project would have directly improved reliability in Picuris Pueblo, the Taos Ski Valley, and El Rito West. Millions of dollars have already been expended, and countless New Mexicans were depending on that project. Now they are all left wondering whether those funds will ever be reimbursed or if New Mexicans will simply be left to pay the price and pick up the pieces.

But it looks like cancellations may just be getting started. This morning there was another article about rumors of even more cancellations coming.

According to reports, this next round of cancellations could involve another 260 awards and $13 billion in revoked funds. Whether that happens or not, I can tell you, without a doubt, that the harm done from the first round will be irreparable.

The cancellations will mean lost jobs for Americans, lost educational opportunities for students. It will mean higher energy bills for households and businesses across this country.

It will make it even harder for folks who are already struggling to make ends meet because of the affordability crisis instigated by this administration's tariffs and economic policies.

It will mean less domestic manufacturing and innovation, all while diminishing America's competitive leadership globally, and it will make it harder for impacted developers and utilities to secure their financing.

That is not just true for the now-canceled projects but also for any future opportunities that depend on the stability of things like government permits and regulatory structure, investments, grants because that is another casualty of this administration's war on American-made affordable energy: the reliability of the permitting process.

In January, on his first day in office, President Trump paused all new leasing and permitting of wind energy projects on public lands.

In February, the Army Corps of Engineers singled out and delayed 168 energy projects on private land.

In March, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew the permit for Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind.

In April, the Department of the Interior imposed a stop-work order on the Empire Wind 1 project.

In July, the Interior Department released a directive requiring the Secretary's personal review and approval of every wind and solar energy project on public lands--a move that will undoubtedly cause long delays.

In August, the Department of the Interior issued an illegal stop-work order on Revolution Wind's offshore wind project--a project that was already 80 percent done. It was fully permitted, and it was 80 percent complete, and they told people to go home. They said: Your job doesn't matter.

In September, the Trump administration asked a court to cancel the permit on a wind farm off of Ocean City, MD. It is a project that would generate 2.2 gigawatts of energy--enough to power 718,000 homes and, just as importantly, support almost 2,700 jobs every year over the next 7 years.

That is just among the ones that have actually been in the news. I have heard from companies across the Nation about delays and difficulties getting their projects permitted.

So let's be clear. Spending your time canceling ready-to-go energy projects isn't doing anything to address the energy crisis.

Instead of fixing any of this, President Trump's Executive order makes it worse. Here is what his order actually does: hikes energy costs for millions of Americans by doubling down on expensive fossil fuels when it makes no economic sense, sends hundreds of thousands of American jobs overseas as other countries continue to develop their next-generation energy sources, decreases our American-made domestic energy supplies, forces us to be more reliant on foreign energy sources, and erodes our economic competitiveness and energy dominance.

It does not have to be this way. The last time we faced an energy crisis in the United States, it was the 1970s. Energy prices were skyrocketing because of the 1973 oil crisis, when barrels of oil--then, our most in-demand energy source--quadrupled in price. U.S. energy production could not meet domestic demand, and the country saw blackouts and brownouts.

With an energy crisis on its hands, Congress actually acted. In a bipartisan effort, Congress created the Department of Energy. It funded significant research around the country to explore new ways to power things--solar, geothermal, nuclear--including the Energy Research and Development Administration. It worked on advancing transmission systems to create more competitive energy markets, saving money for everyone.

Congress met the moment and defined our energy future for decades to come. As part of that, in 1976, construction began on a 5-megawatt thermal solar test facility at the Energy Research and Development Administration's Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. Before it was even complete, the facility became the largest operational solar installation in the world. This solar test facility was just one small example of the huge bipartisan effort to meet that moment.

Today, we are at a similar crossroads. Demand for new technology has once again outpaced available power reserves. Infrastructure is aging. Across the country, utility prices are rising as demand for energy rises too.

Again, Congress can meet this moment. We cannot do that by doubling down on expensive fossil energy or generation sources that take 5, 6, 7, even 10 years to build. If you order a gas turbine today, it would take you 5 to 7 years just to receive it, and its price is going through the roof because of the tariffs that the President has put on things like aluminum and steel. That is not going to solve the rising costs we are dealing with right now.

In contrast, solar, wind, and battery are modular, faster to permit, and easier to construct with fewer supply chain restraints. That is especially true when they are--or were--already permitted, with shovels in the ground, workers ready to build.

Instead of accepting this reality, President Trump and congressional Republicans are flailing, and it is leaving everyday Americans to shoulder the costs.

By eliminating energy sources instead of adding more, this administration is raising your energy prices, raising your electricity bill, not lowering it. The impacts are real, and they are far-reaching.

For many households, the choice to pay hundreds more in energy costs means the choice to not pay for other things--groceries, doctor's bills, school supplies. That is not a choice you should have to make. You shouldn't be a pawn in President Trump's political games.

Senator Kaine and I introduced S.J. Res. 71 to put an end to Trump's war on American-made, affordable energy, to bring down costs for American families, to save jobs that American families rely on, and to call out this administration for its chaos and its incompetence and the fact that it doesn't seem to care about the impacts on everyday Americans.

So I call on all of my colleagues here in the Senate to join us. Vote yes on S.J. Res. 71. Do not make American families pay the price for Trump's war on affordable American energy.

Mr. President, I rise today to bring before the Senate a resolution concerning one of our most serious constitutional responsibilities: whether the United States should engage in armed conflict against a particular adversary.

The Constitution clearly and intentionally places the power to declare war in the hands of this body, the Congress, not with the President or the executive branch. Our Constitution's Framers, having just endured a war and having paid the toll that war always takes, wanted to ensure that our newly independent Nation would see the representatives of the people make the decision of whether and when to put American lives on the line.

In 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson about the danger of leaving that power in the hands of an executive.

He said:

The Constitution supposes, what the History of all

Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of

power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has

accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in

the Legislature.

For the past month, Congress's power to authorize or refuse to authorize the use of power has been usurped by the Executive. This administration has carried out at least four military strikes against vessels that it asserts have ties to drug trafficking organizations. These strikes were not authorized by Congress. Congress has not been shown the evidence of who exactly was on board these ships, whether they were all headed to the United States or some other destination, or whether they posed an imminent danger of attack on the United States. Such strikes are not legal, and they are not made legal or constitutional by the claim--correctly or incorrectly, with or without evidence--that some or all of the occupants of these boats belong to a list of organizations kept secret by the administration.

Being put on a list by the executive branch does not deprive Congress of its vital role in approving the use of force, but such a list kept hidden from the American people, if used as a justification, may drag our Nation into an unintended war.

If it were as simple for a President--any President--to claim that war power for himself by placing an individual or a group of individuals on a list, let alone one held in secret, there would be no limiting principle to the executive's use of force--no limits whatsoever--and that is deeply inconsistent with the intent of our Framers' and the desire of the American people to be kept out of unnecessary military conflicts.

Indeed, the President has confirmed that he does not see a limit. He saw targets at sea, and now he sees potential targets on land.

Now, I know that the word ``unprecedented'' gets used so much these days that perhaps it has lost some of its value, but we need to put in context just how far from normal these strikes are.

For perhaps the first time in our history, a President of the United States ordered the U.S. military to use lethal force against individuals who posed no imminent threat of attack and who could have been stopped thousands of miles from our shore had we interdicted and arrested those on board just as they routinely are by our Coast Guard. Instead, the U.S. military used lethal force on four separate occasions, killing everyone on board.

Despite this breathtaking departure from more than two centuries of law and practice, we still know almost nothing about these strikes, some taking place as far as 2,700 miles away. It may be that there were narcotics traffickers on board some or all of these vessels. It may also be that some of these boats were being used for human trafficking and that the victims of that offense were killed along with the perpetrators, or, if not on one of the first four ships destroyed, then perhaps on the next one.

The lack of detail concerning these strikes is telling. We have learned of these strikes through social media posts from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and from the press. In fact, administration officials have offered differing accounts of where these vessels were heading. Media reports have suggested--without rebuttal from the administration--that the first vessel to be struck had turned around prior to being hit. The Secretary of State originally claimed that one of the boats wasn't even heading to the United States.

Given our Coast Guard presence in the region and with a sizable Navy deployment and expansive intelligence resources, U.S. personnel could have boarded all of these vessels, detained those aboard, seized any drugs or cash, and gathered additional information about ties to drug trafficking organizations, just as they normally do. Secretary of State Rubio even acknowledged publicly that this could have been done but said that the President wanted to send a message by killing all of those on board.

We all agree that the scourge of drugs is real and that scores of Americans die from such poison every year. We are all committed on both sides of the aisle to battling the importation of illegal drugs, even as we work to beat back addiction here at home. But we are also committed to our Constitution, to a system of checks and balances that wisely places the power to make war in our hands, not with an Executive who may grow too fond of using it.

That is why Senator Kaine and I have introduced a resolution to direct the President to stop engaging in armed strikes against these vessels or the country from which they emanate without the explicit authorization of Congress. We are here today to ask our colleagues to join us in this nonpartisan vote, in this affirmation of Congress's authority to declare war or to refuse to declare it; to authorize force or to refuse to authorize it.

We have been precise and deliberate in crafting it. This resolution does not affect the United States' ability to target terrorist groups covered by Congress's existing authorizations to use military force, including al-Qaida, ISIS or its affiliates and offshoots, or to address real threats posed by other groups, like the Houthis. It also in no way limits the United States' ability to defend our own citizens and interests or to come to the collective self-defense of our allies and our partners.

It comes down to this: The President has used our military to strike unknown targets on at least four occasions, and he is promising more. With at least 21 people dead and more killing on the way and with the President telling us that strikes on land-based targets may be next, we ask you to join us in reasserting Congress's vital control over the war power.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me just take this opportunity to address some of the remarks of my colleague who has, I think, rightly pointed out the horrors of drug trafficking and those that are engaged in that poisonous, deadly trade. I agree with that, and we should do everything we can to fight back against those who are trying to traffic that poison into this country. And I agree with him about the murderous dictator that is Maduro.

But here is the thing. If my colleagues in this Congress want to go to war with Venezuela, if they want to use military force to bring about regime change in Venezuela, or if they want to wage a literal war using the military and armed force to blow up traffickers, then they need to come to Congress and seek an authorization to use military force for that purpose because our Constitution is clear.

There are, essentially, three circumstances in which we can constitutionally use force. One is if Congress declares war. We have not declared war on Venezuela. We have not declared a literal fighting war using military troops either.

Or we authorize the use of military force. We have not done so.

Now, the third circumstance in which a President is authorized to use force is in the event of imminent threat of attack from our adversaries. And that is simply not the circumstance here.

Instead, what the administration seems to be relying on is a claim that it has the power, somehow, to put organizations on a list and go after them wherever they may be, without the approval of Congress. That is what this resolution is about.

Now, my colleague also made an argument about the Houthis. Nothing in this resolution affects the ability to defend ourselves from the Houthis as necessary. The President and the former Presidents who have taken action against the Houthis have not done so on the basis of the Houthis being added to some list. Being added to a list, even the foreign terrorist organization list, empowers an administration to put sanctions on that organization. But being placed on a list by the Executive does not give any greater authority to use armed force against an organization.

The basis in which this President and previous Presidents have used force against the Houthis is the Houthis have attacked us, and if the Houthis attack us again, the President will have the article II power to defend ourselves. And nothing in this resolution touches that in any way, shape, or form.

But let me just underscore the perils of what we are discussing today. Now, this is an article that just came out. I haven't had the chance to vet it: ``Colombia president claims U.S. bombed Colombian boat in strike off Venezuela.''

So I don't know whether we have now struck a Colombian ship or what the circumstances were or who was on board, and that is exactly the problem. That is exactly the problem. Now, maybe this is real and maybe it isn't, but the fact that we don't know, the fact that the Executive asserts the authority to blow up ships without coming to Congress for the authorization of that kind of force could invariably lead to mistakes, could also lead, inadvertently, to war with another country.

This resolution says: If you want to use force against narcoterrorists by blowing up ships, come to Congress for an authorization because at this point you don't have it. If there is an imminent threat of attack, you have all of the authority you need under article II. But if you want to engage in a war with Venezuela or a regime change with Maduro and you want to use military force to do it, you need to come to Congress for an authorization. There being none, these strikes are unconstitutional and unlawful.

I would urge my colleagues to join Senator Kaine and myself in supporting this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, particularly in his remarks on the Executive order that Donald Trump issued on Inauguration Day to declare a nonexistent energy emergency. And I join him in support of S.J. Res. 71 to terminate that Executive order.

Let's be very clear. The only real energy emergency that we have in this country is Donald Trump. Since that day of his inauguration, he has used that Executive order to actually create an emergency. This administration's actions are raising prices, killing jobs, and undermining America's global competitiveness.

Now, we have a lot of evidence--and I will be mentioning some of it-- but the most recent is from the International Energy Agency, which has slashed its forecasts for renewable energy capacity growth in the United States this decade, citing the early phaseout of the Federal tax incentives and regulatory shifts under this administration.

Mr. President, I ask that the Wall Street Journal article titled ``IEA Cuts U.S. Renewable Energy Growth Outlook on Trump Policies'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it says:

The West's energy watchdog now expects the [United States]

to add nearly 250 gigawatts of new capacity by 2030--down

almost 50% from last year's projections--as a result of fresh

import restrictions, the suspension of new offshore wind

leasing and a crackdown on permitting for onshore wind and

solar projects on Federal land.

So let us now turn to one of those onshore--or, in this case, offshore--energy projects: Revolution Wind, just one example of the reckless energy policies that the Trump administration has implemented.

Let's be very clear. When President Trump came into office, America was producing more energy than at any point in our country's history. Last year, the United States added 49 gigawatts of new capacity to the grid, and 95 percent of that new capacity was solar, batteries, nuclear, and wind power.

Yet this administration has launched an all-out assault on these lower cost, less polluting sources of energy.

President Trump promised to lower energy prices for Americans ``in half.'' Now, across the country, electricity prices have jumped more than twice as fast as the overall cost of living. And part of that progress before Inauguration Day for Donald Trump and the emergency energy Executive order was Revolution Wind--now, 80 percent complete.

It is an offshore wind project, off of the coast of both Connecticut and Rhode Island, which is why my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, mentioned it so prominently in his remarks.

The fact is, Revolution Wind is fully permitted. The project was on track to deliver 704 megawatts of power beginning in 2026--that is next year--powering 350,000 homes, a project well underway before the Trumped-up energy emergency.

Forty-five of the planned 65 wind turbines were already installed when the Trump administration, just months ago in late August, issued a stop work order, grinding this project to nearly a complete halt--men and women on the job in New London, offshore, onshore, stopped from going to work, out of jobs; investors, construction companies, supply chain suppliers, all of them grinding to a nearly complete halt.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has found that canceling Revolution Wind would cost taxpayers half a billion dollars a year. Let's be clear--half a billion dollars a year to Connecticut and Rhode Island ratepayers every year.

The project has a 20-year contract at 9 cents per kilowatt an hour-- less than half of today's regional price. Connecticut families are already facing surging energy costs. Our electricity bills are among the highest in the Nation. Blocking Revolution Wind undermines efforts to make energy more affordable. It undercuts our work to lower prices for consumers, locking in higher bills for decades and impacting, as well, jobs.

Revolution Wind is providing thousands of jobs in Connecticut and Rhode Island. More than a thousand local union workers have already logged more than 2 million hours on the project. The stop work order put hundreds of these workers on the sideline, and I was proud to stand with a number of them at the Connecticut State Pier to support the offshore wind industry.

Let me thank them and thank the unions that were there. The unions were compelling and powerful, and they are representing their workers. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested into that State pier to support the offshore wind industry.

So the Revolution Wind cancellation threatens our economy, jobs, and, most immediately, affordability for everyday Americans, most particularly in Connecticut and Rhode Island.

But it is not just Connecticut that has benefitted from Revolution Wind. The supply chain for this project stretches across the country, in red States and blue States. The construction of the first American- made offshore wind vessel provided hundreds of jobs. Where? In Louisiana, Florida, and Mississippi. Steel for the project was sourced in Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Offshore wind components were sourced and manufactured in Kansas and South Carolina.

Just as our military construction and manufacturing often is sourced throughout the United States, in this case, all of America is helping to build Revolution Wind.

And what is most galling about the administration's actions on Revolution Wind is they defy logic. Eighty percent complete, all of it permitted, reviewed by the Department of Defense for national security, as well as every other Federal Agency that had anything to do with it, any say at all, approved.

And yet in the eleventh hour, the administration swooped down with a stop work order, citing ``national security concerns.'' And that is it--national security concerns.

Well, that phrase is not a pass for everything the Federal Government wants to do, and so I demanded to know what they were, to be provided with information in a classified briefing, if necessary. I demanded it in a letter. I have yet to receive a satisfactory response. In fact, those concerns collapse under even the slightest scrutiny.

A Department of Defense letter, last year, confirmed, and I quote DOD here, ``construction of the Revolution Wind project . . . would not have adverse impacts to DOD missions.'' No adverse impacts.

So the idea that somehow it might interfere with the movement of submarines from the Groton sub base or maybe testing of submarines by electric boat or some other national security or national defense need, no adverse impact to DOD mission.

So these national security concerns, quite clearly and outrageously, were just a pretext, a flimsy excuse to continue this administration's all-out assault on offshore wind. The President said he doesn't like it. He has got something in for it. There is an animus. Who knows what the reason is.

But, thankfully, there is the law. Yes, a Federal judge saw the administration's stop work order for what it was:

[T]he height of arbitrary and capricious.

Now, Federal judges do not often say that actions by the President of the United States are ``the height of arbitrary and capricious,'' nor do they lightly issue a preliminary injunction against that kind of stop work order, but this judge did. And it was based on the fact and the law, so work was allowed to resume on Revolution Wind.

But let's be very clear, a lot of the harm was done. Work was stopped for almost a month, with workers sidelined and progress halted to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, not the way for the United States to do business, not the way for the United States of America to advance economic growth or provide jobs or, equally important, make energy more affordable.

If this administration can derail a fully approved energy project, whether it is natural gas pipelines or offshore wind farms, why would any developer--why would anyone invest in the United States?

The credibility of the United States as a place to do business craters when projects can be derailed by the personal whim of a President, lawlessly and recklessly, as was done here because this President doesn't like wind power.

On the first day of the government shutdown, the Department of Energy canceled nearly $8 billion in clean energy funding for the whole country. It included $53 million for 12 projects in Connecticut supporting lower energy prices, grid reliability, and American energy independence.

It was done in a way that was as illogical, chaotic, and likely illegal as canceling Revolution Wind was. Again, a self-inflicted wound in every way by this President, and that is why he is the energy emergency. He created it in just months, not even a year. He declared it on his first day in office when there was no energy emergency.

He is denying funding for innovative, promising projects. He is stopping nearly complete offshore wind projects. He is creating chaos. It makes America weaker.

And so I urge my colleagues to vote to end the Trump energy emergency and recommit to finding real solutions to lowering energy costs for consumers and supporting American energy.

And I will just close with, again, referring to the Wall Street Journal's report of today on the International Energy Agency's conclusion about how our capacity for renewable energy will be cut by 50 percent as a result of Trump administration action.

Despite these shifts, Beijing continues to dominate the

global renewable landscape, accounting for nearly 60% of

capacity growth. The country is on track to meet its 2035

solar and wind power targets five years ahead of schedule.

And we wonder why we are in danger of losing competitive advantage to China, not because we lack the resources or the innovators or the workers. It is a failure of leadership, and it begins in the White House.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the status of the floor?

I would ask unanimous consent to offer remarks as if in morning business.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, when I draw a hunting tag, especially for elk, one of the first things that I do is to look at a map of the unit where I drew. I do that for a couple of reasons. I look to see where the public land is, and I also look to see where the roads are because the vast majority of time, that is where the elk aren't.

Elk need habitat security. If there is food and water and a place to securely bed on national forest land in New Mexico, and that spot is a couple of miles or more from an open road, the odds that elk live there are really, really high. So it is almost like the roadless rule was written for elk country because, in fact, it was.

And if you like to catch wild trout that have never seen the inside of a hatchery, you are probably familiar with some of the roadless refuges where these fish still thrive. In fact, 70 percent of the roadless areas in the Nation provide crucial habitat for native trout. So it is almost like the roadless rule was written by fishermen-- because it was.

In fact, it was written by many hunters and fisherman, actually. One of them is, today, the President and CEO of Trout Unlimited, who served as the senior policy and communication advisor to the chief of the Forest Service when this rule was crafted back in 2001.

When my friends draw a coveted Coues deer tag in the Bootheel of New Mexico in what is a famous unit, Unit 27, where are they hunting? Chances are, they are hiking deep into inventoried roadless areas to glass for these deer that Jack O'Connor made famous when he referred to them in his writings as ``the gray ghost.''

So when the Trump administration advocates for eliminating the roadless rule, they are talking about endangering some of the last great wild game habitat on our national forests. These are the back- country places where we sit around a campfire under a sea of stars and pass our traditions down to the next generation of sports men and women.

Finalized in 2001, the roadless rule protects nearly 45 million acres of national forest land that belongs to each and every American. From the hazy blue peaks of the Appalachian Mountains to the imposing spires of the Rockies, from the saltwater estuaries of the Croatan National Forest in North Carolina to the towering Ponderosa Pines of the Santa Fe National Forest in my home State, across the country, many people's favorite hunting spots, their favorite hiking trails and biking routes, ATV trails, and fishing streams are in these protected roadless areas.

When the Nation debated the merits of the roadless rule 24 years ago, the Forest Service held 600 public meetings around the country. These were attended by tens of thousands of Americans. I should know, I attended one of them. The Forest Service received more than 1.6 million comments, and over 95 percent of those were in favor of these roadless protections. You could ask a group of Americans about apple pie, and you wouldn't get a number that high. At the time, this was the largest response to a public comment request ever--ever--that any Agency had ever seen.

Fast-forward 2\1/2\ decades to today, and the Trump administration is threatening to throw the roadless rule into the dustbin of history, except this time, the process looks very different.

The administration opened the public comment period on August 19 and will close it Friday. Now, I know how slow and deliberate government can sometimes be, but there should be no shortcut to public engagement and to the democratic process. Yet a shortcut--or maybe more accurately a short circuit--is exactly what this administration has chosen.

With an underresourced and understaffed Forest Service, I know for a fact that the resource professionals and the scientists at the Forest Service do not support eliminating the roadless rule. This is being imposed upon them by people in the White House who, frankly, have never harvested a bull elk or released a native trout or otherwise experienced the wonder of God's creation in the very lands that represent the anvil on which our Nation's character was forged.

The truth is that the roadless rule protects us from wildfires; it ensures clean drinking water for communities; and it sustains wildlife habitat for wildlife and for sportsmen.

Wildfire prevention is at the heart of why the roadless rule is so important. Eighty-eight percent of wildfires are started by human activity, and 95 percent of human-caused fires begin within a half mile of a road. You can imagine why. It is not complicated. Cars backfire. Cigarette butts get thrown out a window. Trailer chains can spark on a rock. Sometimes campfires get mismanaged. These things happen where we can get with a car or a truck, so roads vastly increase the probability of wildfires rather than reducing them.

The roadless rule specifically allows for the removal of fuels that promote unnaturally intense wildfire. This helps to create a healthier forest and reduce wildfire risk.

The bottom line is that when we build new roads in protected areas, we risk more fires, not fewer.

In States like Idaho and Utah, more than 35 percent of roadless lands have had work done to help reduce fire in those roadless areas. In Montana, almost 30 percent of roadless areas have had similar treatments.

The idea that the roadless rule somehow prevents us from taking steps to lessen wildfire risk and from affecting human communities is patently wrong and inaccurate. The reality is that the Federal Government should be spending its scarce resources to focus on protecting communities closer to roads because that is where the people, homes, and towns are.

Can I talk for just a minute about the economics of building roads in roadless areas? The Forest Service maintains a more than $8.6 billion-- with a ``b''--backlog on maintenance of its existing infrastructure and roads. Why would we countenance building new roads in back-country areas with low timber values and extremely high costs when we can't even take care of the existing roads that we already have?

Beyond wildfire prevention, the roadless rule protects the water sources that sustain our communities. Many people don't know that large cities like Atlanta and Denver and Los Angeles rely on water supplies from our national forests. In fact, some 180 million people--over 68,000 communities, large and small--rely on forested lands to capture and filter drinking water. That means that the Forest Service lands are the largest source of municipal water supply in the Nation, serving over 60 million people across 33 different States.

Roadless areas actually protect the headwaters of many municipal watersheds, and that includes places like the water supply for the city of Santa Fe, in my home State. When they rescind the roadless rule, it threatens access to clean water for millions of Americans.

Now, finally, the roadless rule preserves the fish and wildlife habitat and sustains the hunting, fishing, and recreation economy. Every year, I and millions of other hunters rely on public lands to feed our souls and to feed our families. The Sportsmen's Alliance estimates that in 2022, recreational hunters alone generated $133 billion in economic output, created 1.3 million jobs, and supported more than $80 billion in wages alone. And this is part of a larger pattern. The Bureau of Economic Analysis calculated that the economic output of outdoor recreation in 2023 was over $1 trillion.

If the administration builds roads in these places, we not only lose these experiences, but our economies lose their customers. It is not just me saying this; constituents across my State are saying it to me too. Michael writes from Albuquerque. He says:

[T]his seems to be rushed without full considerations of

the ramifications. I do not want the health and solitude of

our forests compromised by opening the door to unwanted

development.

Diane from Taos writes:

Please vote to stop the plan to rescind the Roadless Rule.

I lead herb identification walks in the Taos area . . . so

many people come to this state to enjoy the beauty of

untrammeled forest. We need to . . . stop Trump and his abuse

of our public lands.

Hannah writes from Santa Fe:

Our forests need our help now more than ever. It's hard to

feel so hopeless to help them these days, and I hope you will

defend our forests.

So I stand here today, supported by my own experiences and supported by

the voices of constituents, to defend these forests. But I am not only defending our forests. In fighting for the roadless rule, we are fighting for protections for our roadless areas and against putting special interests first. We are fighting for stronger local economies for all and against industrial development for a wealthy few.

Gifford Pinchot was the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, and he once said:

The vast possibilities of our great future will become

realities only when we make ourselves responsible for that

future.

We are responsible for that future, and the actions that we take today will reverberate for generations to come. I am fighting for the roadless rule, and I urge you to join me.

To my colleagues in the Forest Service, I ask that you extend the public comment period for the public so that we can hear their voices.

To the American people and my constituents in New Mexico, I urge you to engage in the public commenting process and make sure that your voices are heard.

Mr. President, I rise to deliver two statements on the two resolutions that are before us. First let me comment upon the proposal S.J. Res. 71, led by my colleagues Senator Kaine and Heinrich, to overturn President Trump's sham energy emergency.

You would think that, in an energy emergency, the President would be pursuing the all-of-the-above energy policy his administration has touted, but instead he is throwing up roadblocks at more than 90 percent of the power set to come online, as his Energy Secretary has acknowledged. Meanwhile, President Trump has invoked emergency powers to fast-track dirty fossil fuel projects, primarily to reward the Big Oil donors whom he reportedly asked to donate a billion dollars to his campaign.

The fact is, energy prices are a real emergency for the American people, and we need more energy on the grid to keep up with the proliferation of AI and data centers. But the truth also is, President Trump and the harmful actions his administration is taking are actually restricting supply, killing good-paying jobs, and increasing energy prices, which have risen at more than twice the rate of inflation this year under President Trump.

I will highlight two examples of President Trump's reckless actions in my home State of Rhode Island. Right now, the Rhode Island AFL-CIO is leading a critical lawsuit against President Trump's cancelation of the $7 billion Solar for All Program, which was designed to help low- and middle-income families install solar panels on their homes, saving those families about $400 each year on electricity costs.

Rhode Island received nearly $50 million under this program to help thousands of Rhode Island households install and utilize solar energy while supporting hundreds of good-paying jobs in the State.

President Trump claims to support workers, but he is actually killing good jobs that would bring affordable energy online for our constituents. And just weeks after canceling the Solar for All Program, the Trump administration paused work on Revolution Wind, a nearly complete offshore wind project off the coast of Rhode Island. This project is 80 percent constructed, with over $5 billion invested and 45 turbines already installed in the Atlantic Ocean. It supports more than 1,000 local union jobs and is poised to deliver enough low-cost energy to power 350,000 homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut. State officials estimate that losing this project could cost New England ratepayers up to $500 million a year.

I am encouraged that a Federal court in Washington, DC, granted a motion allowing work on Revolution Wind to proceed and that work has restarted, but these cynical moves show that the President doesn't really care about energy prices or supply or jobs; he cares, really, about pleasing his Big Oil donors.

He is also pleasing China, which is becoming the global leader in clean energy technology, building almost three-quarters of the world's solar and wind projects, according to the Global Energy Monitor. And despite President Trump's claims that China is simply exporting these technologies and not utilizing them, the New York Times reported that ``In China, more wind turbines and solar panels were installed last year than in the rest of the world combined.''

At the same time, President Trump is trying to keep the United States hooked on expensive oil and gas and dependent on OPEC and other foreign actors with interests opposed to our own; and while he is doing that, China is launching into a new age of relatively cheap energy that will power their data centers and their infrastructure.

Rhode Islanders deserve infrastructure that creates good jobs; provides affordable, clean power; increases our energy independence; and reduces climate-destroying greenhouse gases in the process. And it is clear Trump's energy emergency is a sham, and I am proud to join my colleagues' efforts to overturn it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to move to the topic before the Senate with respect to the War Powers resolution regarding Caribbean military operations.

I rise to express my deep concern about the Trump administration's ongoing military operations in the Caribbean and to voice my strong support for the War Powers Resolution introduced by Senators Schiff, Kaine, Wyden, and Sanders.

Over the past month, the United States has carried out four lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean, reportedly killing 21 individuals. These attacks have been retroactively explained by the President's unilateral declaration that the United States is in ``armed conflict'' with unnamed ``non-state armed groups'' throughout the Western Hemisphere.

He has deployed thousands of U.S. forces, ships, and aircraft to conduct

these operations--all without congressional authorization and without any credible explanation to the American people.

Let me be clear. The drug cartels that traffic poison across our borders are violent and reprehensible. They have devastated families and communities across our country. We must do everything in our power through law enforcement, intelligence, and international cooperation to bring these organizations down. But that is not what this is all about. These are not police actions or defensive operations; these are targeted, lethal military strikes using weapons designed for warfare, not interdiction or law enforcement.

The administration has offered no positive identification for those killed, nor any information linking the boat crews to cartels. In fact, they have not proven that these vessels were engaged in drug trafficking, nor even that they were destined for the United States.

I would note that even if this evidence had been provided, that would only justify interdiction by law enforcement, not lethal military strikes.

The justification thus far has relied entirely on the President's word, and that is not good enough. Our Constitution does not vest the power to wage war on one man's word. The White House has claimed that these strikes are allowable under the President's article II powers as Commander in Chief, but article II is not a blank check. The Framers of our Constitution deliberately separated the powers of war and peace between the branches.

James Madison warned:

The executive is the branch most prone to war; therefore

the Constitution has, with studied care, vested that power in

the legislature.

The War Powers Resolution exists for moments like this. It ensures that before we send American forces into hostilities, the people's representatives have debated and voted on that decision. It ensures accountability. It ensures legitimacy.

If we allow these unauthorized operations to continue unchecked, we will have surrendered Congress's most solemn constitutional duty. We will have set the precedent that the President--any President--may initiate military action at will, without oversight, without transparency, and without the consent of the governed.

We have seen this pattern before. Over the past several years, this administration has repeatedly tested the limits of Executive power-- ordering strikes in Iran and Yemen and now the Caribbean, while refusing even a brief consultation with Congress. Each time, the lines blur a little further. Each time, the balance of power tilts a little more toward the Executive.

This body, the U.S. Senate, cannot afford to shrug and move on. The slow erosion of congressional oversight is not an abstract debate about process; it is a real and present threat to our democracy.

The War Powers Resolution before us does not tie the President's hands in responding to genuine threats; it simply requires him to do what every Commander in Chief should: come to Congress, present the facts, and seek authorization from the people's representatives before initiating hostilities. That is not weakness. That is constitutional strength. It is the principle that has guided our Republic for nearly 2\1/2\ centuries.

Finally, I will say this: Even setting aside the constitutional questions, this campaign is deeply unwise. The notion that we can bomb our way out of a drug trafficking crisis is not strategy; it is wishful thinking. Using the U.S. military to conduct unchecked strikes in the Caribbean risks destabilizing the region, provoking confrontation with neighboring governments, and drawing our forces into yet another open- ended conflict without a clear mission or exit strategy.

Conflict in the Caribbean or with Venezuela is entirely avoidable, but the risk that we stumble into war because of one man's impulsive decision making has never been higher. Our troops deserve better--much better.

This War Powers Resolution would restore that balance. It reaffirms that the Constitution has always required that decisions of war and peace belong to the legislature, not the Executive.

Mr. President, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to reassert the fundamental role of Congress in matters of war.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are down here telling the Trump administration that their energy emergency, as they call it, is the emergency for our country. Trump, Secretary Chris Wright--this whole administration is using emergency authorities to make up a crisis that is resulting in our electric bills going sky high all across our country, and our clean energy jobs are going up in smoke. This energy emergency is just fossil fuel gaslighting of the American people.

Since Trump took office, electricity prices have gone up more than 10 percent--twice as fast as general inflation, which also remains historically high thanks to the Trump administration running our economy into the ground. Their tariffs and their healthcare policies are leading to higher prices--the price of food, the price of clothing, the price of electricity--because of the Trump policies.

So why is this happening? For starters, Trump and the Republicans are failing Econ 101. On the demand side, Big Tech is demanding big amounts of electricity for its data centers. Data centers are projected to demand up to 130,000 megawatts of electricity load by 2030--as much electricity as is used by more than 100 million American homes. Do you want to hear that again? This is all going to happen in the blink of an eye. They are going to be consuming as much electricity as 100 million homes in our country.

On the supply side, well, Trump is cutting off our cheapest and quickest-to-deploy sources of energy that can meet this demand. Trump's sham energy emergency pushes fossil fuels as the solution, but those fossil fuels are polluting, they are pricey, and they are getting pushed abroad to the highest bidder as exports. These fossil fuel exports actually increase energy costs here for Americans. This is what Senator Kaine has been talking about, trying to raise the profile of these issues.

Last week, the Trump administration announced that they are killing nearly $8 billion in grants for grid development and energy innovation, targeting States that did not vote for Donald Trump in 2024. This week, rumors have been swirling about the impending cancelation of tens of billions of additional energy grant dollars that would be out there trying to create more electricity, more energy here in the United States. These lawless terminations hamstring American competitors, drive up energy costs, and hurt domestic manufacturing.

But this is nothing new for this chaos administration, which has already prevented hundreds of thousands of clean energy megawatts from getting onto the grid. That is more than $42 billion in private sector clean energy projects and 80,000 clean energy jobs already wiped out by Donald Trump in the first 9 months of his administration.

Wright, Vought, Burgum, Trump--it is a fossil fuel cabal. It is not a Cabinet; it is a cartel that is now running the United States of America right out of the Oval Office, killing all of the new energy sources that we need from wind and solar, from batteries, all-electric vehicles--this incredible transformation that was taking place in our country that they are now just trying to completely and totally kill.

Republicans' ``Big Ugly Bill,'' which eliminated programs working to lower household costs and get clean energy built, is expected to cause wholesale electricity prices to rise by 74 percent over the next 10 years--that is just in one bill--while keeping 350,000 megawatts of wind and solar off the grid over the next 10 years.

Just think about that. There are massive amounts of wind and solar all lined up, ready to get on to the wires that go up and down the streets of our country--the grid--and what the Republicans are doing is saying: We are killing it all.

Of course, if you don't have all of that extra electricity and AI consumes all of the remaining electricity, guess who is going to pick up the tab? It is going to be residential homeowners. It is going to be small businesses. They will have to pay much higher rates for the remaining electricity. There will be a bidding war for the remaining electricity in our country. Each individual family cannot compete against these big AI companies. So the ``Big Ugly Bill'' is going to mean a lot of big ugly bills arriving in mailboxes for pretty much every American over the next 10 years for their dramatically skyrocketed electricity.

Their crazed push to produce more fossil fuels, whether by cutting pollution regulation, selling off our public lands, keeping retiring coal plants online, will cost Americans billions more. We will see blackouts and we will see bigger bills because Trump and the Republicans want bigger profits for their fossil fuel buddies--buddies who contributed to Trump's campaign and have gotten paid out big time in return, with more than $4 billion in brandnew handouts from the government this year alone.

Let's call Trump's energy agenda what it really is: oil above all, not all of the above.

Trump's energy agenda is killing American energy, especially the most affordable and the most ready-to-go energy out there because--here are the facts: Last year in the United States, 94 percent of all new electrical generation capacity was wind and solar and batteries. Let me say that again so everyone can hear it. Last year, 94 percent of all new electricity came from wind and solar and batteries.

You wouldn't know that if you listened to the White House. You wouldn't know that if you listened to the Department of Energy or the EPA because they are just lying about it. They are just flat-out lying about the role that wind and solar can play in our system because they are over here just doing the bidding of the natural gas and the coal industry. That is who they are.

They are looking at the future in a rearview mirror while young people are looking to the future. Young people want to have this renewable energy revolution unleashed for their century, for the 21st century.

Solar panels today cost 1 percent of what they cost just 30 years ago--1 percent. That is how much it has dropped. Crazy.

They say it is not working, in the White House. What is happening to them? It is working too well. The oil, gas, and coal industry--they are afraid of the future competition that comes from the technologies of this younger generation in our country. They can smell it coming, that their future is in the rearview mirror. That is what this whole thing is all about.

There is a way of now producing solar energy. Even solar plus storage is cheaper than running any coal-burning plant in the United States of America. But you wouldn't know that from listening to Donald Trump, when he says: I love coal. I love clean coal.

Well, young people love clean solar, clean wind. It is cheaper, and it doesn't lead to asthma, it doesn't lead to lung cancer, and it doesn't lead to genetic damage that can hurt future generations of those families who are nearby those coal-burning plants.

Trump and Republicans have taken aim at renewables because they are just plain scared. Even with all the subsidies that Big Oil and Big Gas get from our government, renewables are winning on the market.

Trump is doing his fossil fuel donors' dirty work and keeping American-made competition off of the grid. These are Trump energy taxes on the American people.

So let's shine a spotlight on this fossil fuel gaslighting. Trump's declaration is the energy emergency. Trump's declaration is the energy emergency. He is stopping the future from arriving. He is stopping this generation from deriving the benefits of a revolution that can be led by the United States and then spread around the world--a solar revolution, a wind revolution, a renewables revolution.

We should be the leaders, so let's end his sham declaration so we can get lower bills, not raise barriers to affordable, American-made, clean energy.

I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support Senator Kaine and Senator Heinrich's resolution. This is a critical debate. This goes to, yes, the prices for electricity for all American families, all American small businesses, but it also goes to the future of our planet.

Are we going to reduce the greenhouse gases we are sending up? Are we going to recognize that we have a generational responsibility to be the leader? Because the planet is running a

fever, and there are no emergency rooms for planets. We have to engage in preventive care. That is what the wind and solar and battery storage technologies all represent. They represent that future--a healthier future, a safer future for all generations of all children in all countries of the world. The United States should be the leader and not the lagger.

I thank you, Senator Kaine, and I thank you, Senator Heinrich, for bringing this resolution onto the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to join a number of my colleagues because time is of the essence. If Congress doesn't act to extend tax credits for the cost of health insurance, millions of Americans are going to lose their coverage and many more could see their costs go up by as much as 75 percent. And that is on top of the most recent inflation data that shows our economy is headed in the wrong direction.

Despite those numbers, everything that we have seen from this administration--from its tariff policy raising prices on cars to coffee to the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill--or betrayal, as I call it--that ripped Medicaid away from millions of Americans to finance tax breaks for billionaires--all of those actions has made the affordability crisis for average Americans worse. For far too many American families, this growing affordability crisis includes the rising cost of healthcare. We in Congress must not let these concerns go unanswered, especially when we have the ability to act. And we have the solution to prevent healthcare costs from skyrocketing even further overnight.

That is why a number of my colleagues and I have worked in the Senate to introduce bicameral legislation that would permanently extend the enhanced premium tax credits, those benefits that allow so many Americans--our neighbors, our small businesses, our friends--who rely on that help to keep their premium costs low to be able to afford health insurance.

Extending the tax credits has been a priority, and we have been calling attention to the looming expiration of these vital tax credits since last year. In fact, three times during this past year, my Democratic colleagues and I have tried to pass our legislation to offer some real relief to working families grappling with the high cost of living. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked each and every one of these efforts.

Now, this program to provide that help that families need to cover their cost of health insurance is set to expire at the end of the year, and there is no plan in sight to replace it and to help families afford health insurance. Allowing these tax credits to expire is going to harm the record enrollment in the ACA Marketplace that so many people have worked so hard to achieve, and this past year there has been record enrollment in the ACA.

Now, what does it mean for Americans if we allow these tax credits to expire? It means that 24 million Americans will see their health insurance costs go up. It means that 4 million Americans could lose their coverage entirely. And that is not an exaggeration because that is based on the nonpartisan data from the Congressional Budget Office.

Now, according to a report that a number of us commissioned from the Georgetown Center on Health Insurance Reforms, eliminating these tax credits will disproportionately hurt older people, those who live in rural areas, and small business owners--those people who can least afford to pay additional costs for their health insurance. On average, Marketplace premiums will rise by 75 percent, roughly $700 a year. That is the biggest increase in over a decade, and this price increase affects the very people who can least afford rising costs right now.

I spoke with one of my constituents last week, Paul from Canaan. Canaan is a small town in the northern part of New Hampshire. He is one of those people who we talk about and who Georgetown University Center talked about when they talked about the impact of those cost increases on Americans. Paul's employer-sponsored insurance would be prohibitively expensive for him and his family. Not only that, it is not accepted by a lot of the providers in his area. His wife also has an autoimmune disease, and his son needs insurance coverage in order to attend the University of New Hampshire.

So that means that those enhanced premium tax credits, the benefits that we provided in Congress to ensure that families like Paul's could afford their health insurance, they have been a lifeline for him. He told me that thanks to the credits, he no longer fears that one single emergency room visit could bankrupt his family. But sadly, without those enhanced premium tax credits, not only Paul but millions of Americans will have to make difficult choices about what they can live without so they can afford health insurance. That should be unacceptable to all of us in the United States of America.

The American people are rightfully concerned about the soaring costs of healthcare coverage, and they are looking to Congress; they are asking us to work together to get this done. I am here to remind all of our colleagues--along with Senator Welch and those of us who are speaking to this--but mostly our Republican colleagues, some of whom I know are very aware of what an issue this is for their constituents. They are also aware that the clock is ticking. Some Republicans in Congress keep saying: Let's wait. We have time to deal with this later.

Unfortunately, we now know that there is a cost to waiting. Just yesterday, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that if we don't act, if we wait until the end of the year to pass an extension, that 1.5 million more people will go uninsured, premiums will still go up, and waiting actually costs the Federal Government an additional $10 billion.

So for all of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were so anxious to cut different aspects of our government because they want to fund their tax decrease for the wealthiest in this country, they ought to care about an additional $10 billion that it is going to cost if we wait to address this issue. Waiting to act is going to leave more Americans uninsured; it is going to cost patients more from their hard-

earned income; and it is going to be more expensive for the Federal Government.

So while I am encouraged by some of the public reporting that several of our Republican colleagues are interested in extending the ACA enhanced premium tax credits, the time for us to act is now. The President's own pollsters have warned that not extending these tax credits would be a political catastrophe for the GOP.

I would hope that we could all agree that addressing the affordability crisis that Americans are facing because of the increasing costs of everything from groceries to rent to electricity shouldn't be partisan issues.

I know there are many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who understand these stakes, who are worried about what is happening with their constituents. So let's come together. Let's address the American people's concerns. Let's put aside the politics and work to keep healthcare premiums affordable. Let's support the small business owners who power local economies all across the country and create two-thirds of the jobs in America. Let's preserve this vital program that keeps Americans healthy and safe.

I yield the floor.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

I think one of the things that people don't understand--and I don't know if you agree with me--is that what is going on here is that as these costs go up and as it becomes harder for people to enroll in the Affordable Care Act marketplace because of other changes that were made in that ``Big Betrayal Bill,'' that the risk pool--a lot of healthy people don't sign up again.

And so the risk pool includes a lot more people who are sicker, who have illnesses. And as the insurance companies are looking at those projections, they are saying: Well, we got to raise rates because if we don't, we are not going to be able to cover the people that need help. That doesn't just affect those people who have those health insurance costs, but all of the rest of us are going to pay more for our health insurance too.

Would you agree that is part of what is going on? That is what we heard from Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reform.

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

Mr. President, last Wednesday, the uniquely American tragedy of gun violence struck Colorado yet again. At Evergreen High School in Jefferson County, a 16-year-old shot and injured two students and an administrator. Tonight, these three victims are still recovering, and their classmates and teachers and families are still reeling. Every elementary and middle school in the State is wondering whether they might be next.

It has been 26 years since the Columbine tragedy; 26 years since 2 gunmen murdered 13 students and a teacher and left many others physically and mentally wounded for life. Since that day, Jefferson County, CO, has done what no community should ever have to do: They have built some of the strongest systems in the Nation to prepare for and respond to mass shootings at their schools.

At Evergreen, teachers acted so quickly that when the shooter tried door after door, looking for students and teachers, he couldn't reach a single classroom. Law enforcement arrived on the scene in under 2 minutes and located the shooter in fewer than 5. Every single one of us should be grateful to every teacher, administrator, first responder, and student who acted with courage at Evergreen High School. Their bravery saved countless lives, and they now stand as a national example of how to respond to one of these terrible situations.

Mr. President, it should never have to be this way. I remember Columbine as if it were yesterday. I was in the Houston Airport coming home from a work trip when I saw our Colorado high school flashing on the screens of every single television set in the terminal. It filled me, as it did all Americans, with horror. How could something like this happen in America?

My wife Susan was 6 months pregnant with our oldest daughter Caroline, and all I could think about was getting home to my family. But Caroline and her two sisters, Halina and Anne, like millions of other American kids, have grown up in the shadow of Columbine. They have borne witness to an endless onslaught of mass shootings. Each tragedy is piled on top of the last one during their young lives.

In the summer of 2012, a gunman walked into a crowded theater in Aurora, CO, and killed 12 innocent people and wounded 58 more. We lost sons and daughters and friends and neighbors, all full of life and full of aspiration, loved by family and loved by friends.

A few months later, Sandy Hook shook the entire Nation to its knees. Twenty first graders--twenty first graders--and six teachers were killed in mere moments.

We hoped then that Congress would finally act. I can remember that balcony in the Chamber being filled with parents and children of people who had been massacred in their elementary school, hoping against all hope that this body would do something to respond; that Congress would finally pass background checks--something that 90 percent of the American people support. As everybody knows, to our everlasting shame, we didn't. We failed to act.

And somewhere along the Nation, we became numb to these tragedies. I will never forget in 2017, after a gunman slaughtered 58 people in Las Vegas who were across the street from his hotel, I sat through 5 or 6 meetings the next day before anybody mentioned that 58 people had been killed in that mass shooting. Ultimately, 60 lives were stolen as we carried on with business as usual here in Washington. We have become numb.

But, Mr. President, for the sake of our children, we cannot be numb. We need to understand that our children never can become numb. They won't become numb. They can't move on because this is their one chance to be an elementary school student; this is their one chance to be a middle school student; this is their one chance to be a high school student. When they witness, even at a distance, even from another town or another State, children being destroyed or wounded by something like the Aurora movie theater shooting or like Columbine or like the Evergreen shooting, the fear that enters their young lives is whether they might be next. That is what they carry to school day after day after day throughout their young lives.

The result of that and the result of our inaction is that America's children carry a burden unlike any generation before them or any other country in the industrialized world. They are the generation of school metal detectors, active shooter drills, and bulletproof backpacks. They live with the constant terror that they could be next.

Colorado's children have grown up in the shadow of Columbine, and 25 years later, we are still losing this fight. And they have the right to be terrified. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for America's kids. Think about that, Mr. President. Think about that. Gun violence is the leading cause of death of America's kids. Twenty-five years ago when Columbine happened, it was car accidents. Now it is gun violence.

When I heard that statistic, I assumed that most of those gun deaths must be accidents, but only 5 percent were--only 5 percent were. The rest were homicides and suicides and mass shootings. In other words, the leading cause of death in America, in the richest country in the world, in the greatest country in the world, is violent shootings of our own children. There is no other country in the industrialized world where that is even close.

The indifference in this body is staggering. The claim that this is somehow the price of freedom is staggering or that this is what the Constitution of the United States requires for us, to fully embrace the rights enunciated by the Founders of this country. That is incomprehensible--the price of freedom.

What about the freedom of our children, the right of our children to be able to go to school with the freedom that they are not going to be gunned down, the freedom of the knowledge to know that their classmates are not going to be gunned down or that they could go there and be next on the list? What about that freedom? That seems as fundamental as any other freedom that is articulated in the Constitution of the United States, which, after all, guarantees us our rights as citizens in this Nation, including our children.

We may have become numb, Mr. President, but our children never will because they are as evergreen as Evergreen High School. This is the first time and the last time that they will be elementary school students and middle school students and high school students. I think we need to find a way to channel their raw emotion, their confusion, their anger, their fear, and their terror and summon the will to overcome our failures--this generation's failures.

My home State of Colorado has tried to do that, and we have made progress. After the massacre at Columbine, we closed the gun show loophole, which 90 percent of the American people support. After the tragedy in Aurora, we strengthened background checks in my State. In the wake of the shooting at Club Q, we raised the age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. This year, Governor Polis signed three commonsense gun violence prevention laws restricting the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms, requiring retailers to keep ammunition locked, and setting age limits for gun shows.

Colorado is making progress, but States can't do it alone. We can't do it alone in Colorado--a Western State that has a majority of unaffiliated voters in our purple State; that takes pride in our hunters and our anglers and our ranchers. If we can find the will to act, so can the U.S. Congress, and for the sake of our children, we must.

With deep, deep regret, I yield the floor.