Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I want to salute Senator Duckworth for bringing this critical issue to the floor so that the American people can hear what our views are on this war but also reflect their views. I also want to salute her for her heroic service in the U.S. Army. Thank you, Senator. I rise today to discuss the war in Iran. Forty-six days ago, President Trump unilaterally launched this war. He declined to make his case before the American people. He refused to consult Congress. He failed to present evidence of an imminent threat, and he ignored his advisers, who warned him about the peril of such an operation. President Trump believed he alone had the judgment to engage our Nation in a major conflict, and he alone had the ability to secure a quick, complete victory. After more than 6 weeks of war, what has the President accomplished? Thirteen American servicemembers have tragically lost their lives. More than 300 have been wounded. Thousands of civilians across the Middle East have been killed and injured, and hundreds of thousands displaced. The United States has lost dozens of aircraft, sustained significant damage to our bases, and burned through an alarming amount of our missile inventory and other munitions. Global oil prices have surged more than 45 percent, and the cost of gasoline and household goods in our communities have risen significantly. American families are bearing the cost of a war they wanted nothing to do with and have gained nothing from. In sum, the President took a difficult status quo and somehow managed to make it far worse. On February 27, the Strait of Hormuz was open to maritime traffic. American farmers could count on fertilizer shipments. Our high-tech chip makers, in whom we have invested billions of dollars, could count on helium deliveries. Today, the Strait of Hormuz is closed. Incredibly, it is now President Trump who is blockading the strait, rather than Iranians. This is a bizarre and incoherent strategy. A blockade will push prices even higher, with ripple effects on food, fuel, and consumer goods across this country--indeed across the world. Additionally, Iran has demonstrated that it responds to military pressure with defiance, not concession. This blockade is unlikely to change Iran's negotiating position, and I worry it will do nothing more than place our servicemembers in greater danger. Only under President Trump's chaotic tenure would a month and a half of fighting result in the United States being in a weaker strategic position than before the war began. Here are the facts. Iran still retains its nuclear program. Its ballistic missile capabilities and drone arsenal, although diminished, still pose a threat. Moreover, the regime has learned it can effectively control the Strait of Hormuz when it chooses. President Trump has badly damaged America's standing with our allies, emboldened our adversaries, and lost any moral authority he had on the international stage. The American people, including many of his own supporters, strongly disapprove of this war. At this stage, we must ask: What comes next? The President has shown he will not listen to military and regional experts and is uninterested in earning the support of the American people. While that is a decision he can make, if he is unconstrained by anything other than his ``own morality,'' then Congress has a duty to constrain him through the powers we hold as the constitutional check and balance on the President. Congress controls the purse. Congress declares war and ratifies treaties. Congress represents--and answers to--the American people. It is long past time for Republicans to stop avoiding their constitutional duties and start reining in the President's ability to unilaterally wage war. At a bare minimum, it is long past time they hold public hearings with Cabinet officials to provide accountability for the American people. Now, I am relieved that the cease-fire appears to be holding for the moment. The administration should use this time wisely and immediately return to negotiating a diplomatic agreement. That means engaging in serious, structured conversation with Iran to address nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, their proxy activity, but also the sanctions that are in place and the security guarantees that the Iranians will demand. It also means taking a realistic approach to opening the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians have a complex, layered network of sea mines, fast attack boats, air and sea drones, missiles, and hidden launch sites in the cliffs around the strait that provide them with many effective options to threaten ships in the passage. Even if the United States cleared the strait of mines and began escorting commercial ships with our own Navy vessels, militarily suppressing and defeating Iran's ambush network is not a sustainable long-term option. A diplomatic arrangement is the only real answer. And I must say that to achieve this diplomatic arrangement, the President needs and should announce a group of experts--not real estate developers and golfing buddies--to go over there. This is not going to be settled by the friends of the President cutting a deal. It took us almost 2 years and complicated discussions about nuclear policy, nuclear objectives, et cetera, to get the JCPOA. It is going to take us a while to settle this issue, too, and we can't settle it with a casual group negotiating on a weekend. The President said he was shocked that Iran closed the strait and bombarded gulf nations in response to his attack. That is rather astounding because everyone with a modest knowledge of the Iranian regime was not particularly shocked. Indeed, the course of this war was entirely predictable. Generations of American military and political experts have examined the Iran problem and repeatedly reached the same conclusion: War with Iran would not achieve our goal. Indeed, President Trump was given the same warning by his advisers. According to press reports, Gen. Dan Caine the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs warned the President of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict and expressed concerns about U.S. casualties and the difficulty caused by a lack of allies. General Caine also raised the possibility that Iran would block the Strait of Hormuz, stating it was long believed Iran would deploy mines, drones, and missiles to close the world's most vital shipping lane. A separate intelligence official reportedly emphasized, in his words: It wasn't just predictable. It was predicted. He was told in advance. The President ignored the advice and decades of historical lessons and attacked anyway. At this juncture, the administration has realized that the Iranians are not going to capitulate and that the difficult work of diplomacy cannot be wrapped up in a mere 21 hours of negotiation. Facing this reality, the President has several options. First, the President could simply declare victory, as he has done so often, and leave the region without a deal. But what would he leave behind? A battered Iran with more antagonistic and radical leaders who may have concluded the only way to avoid future attacks is to acquire a nuclear weapon. With hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium on hand, that possibility is very real--and could be accelerated with Russian, Chinese, or North Korean assistance. Second, the President could launch new military strikes to try to force the regime to surrender. However, this would inevitably result in renewed attacks against our forces in the region and a prolonged closure of the strait. And as I mentioned earlier, the regime has already demonstrated that its threshold for pain is high and its regard for its people is low. An extended military campaign would not change the Iranians' negotiating demands. Now I would propose a third route. The President can resurrect serious negotiations with Iran across the full range of issues dividing our two nations. The agenda must be broad enough for both sides to claim benefit. That is the only way you get to a deal, and we hope ``The Art of the Deal'' is present in this situation. The United States must address nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and malign proxy activity, and Iran will seek guarantees against further military operations, sanctions relief, and other assurances. President Trump was foolish, in my view--and reflecting Senator Kaine--to tear up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action he inherited from President Obama, but with diplomacy, his administration may be able to regain some of the important pieces that he previously abandoned. But there is an additional obstacle to peace that must be addressed: Prime Minister Netanyahu. Prime Minister Netanyahu has spent the better part of 30 years gathering support for what he believed to be an inevitable confrontation with Iran. His personal and political fortunes are entirely aligned with the continuation of this war. As he faces an election and a criminal trial, he is using the war as personal and political armor. Unless Trump is willing to force Netanyahu to stand down, Israel will continue operations regardless of what America does. Mr. President, this war was ill-conceived, I oppose it, and if it is still ongoing after 60 days, I will vote against an authorization of military force to continue it. I am proud to be here today in support of Senator Duckworth's proposal. From day one, Trump lacked any clear objectives and realistic views of the consequences, but peace can be accomplished. The path forward requires honesty from President Trump about what military force can and cannot achieve, the discipline to negotiate seriously, and the courage to lead our allies rather than alienate them. Unfortunately, this President, I believe, cannot be trusted to chart this path. He has shown an intractable instinct for destruction first and diplomacy last. He will never secure a peaceful conclusion to this conflict as long as Congress allows President Trump to wage war whenever and however he sees fit. Yes, we have to stand up and be true to the oath we all took: to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this War Powers Resolution. I urge them to choose the path of peace before the costs of President Trump's war become irreversible. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today alongside my colleagues to speak out against an attack on a fundamental right of every American citizen--the right to vote. I want to thank Senator Padilla, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for leading this important effort. The deceptively named SAVE America Act is all about sowing doubt in our elections and making it harder for American citizens to register and to vote. It is all part of an effort by the administration to pick who votes rather than allowing voters to pick who wins. Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that the SAVE Act was important ``to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders.'' President Trump endorsed the SAVE Act because it will ``guarantee the midterms.'' He said that Republicans ``should take over the voting in at least 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.'' Steve Bannon agreed that, in his words, ``President Trump has to nationalize the election. You've got to put--not just, I think, ICE-- you've got to call up the 82nd and the 101st Airborne. . . . You've got to get around every poll.'' As I will explain, the SAVE Act is precisely the vehicle that Trump, Noem, Bannon, and others will use to trample the Constitution's provisions that States run elections and sow doubt about this fall's election result. The SAVE Act isn't about election integrity. It is yet another power grab by President Trump. It is no different from him begging the Republican secretary of state in Georgia to find votes in 2020 or failing to act when a violent mob invaded the Capitol on January 6. The President is interested in one thing and one thing only--himself. Look no further than putting his name on the Kennedy Center, tearing down part of the White House, or adding his face and signature to our currency. It is always about his ability to stay and seize more power, and the SAVE Act is no different. Here is how the SAVE Act is another power grab for President Trump. First, under the guise of solving the illusory problem of noncitizen voting, the SAVE Act would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. That means presenting your birth certificate and a government-issued photo ID in person at the time you register. Well, many people, such as married women, do not have a birth certificate that currently matches their name or cannot find their birth certificate. Nationwide, there are 69 million married women who have changed their name, and 21 million people don't have ready access to a passport or a birth certificate. I do not think the Federal Government should be in the business of making it harder for these people to vote. Second, it would require government-issued photo ID to vote in person. Now, I represent a State that requires voter ID. Rhode Island has taken a sensible approach. But the list of acceptable forms of ID to vote under the SAVE Act would be much narrower than what is required under Rhode Island law. Every State has developed its own rules for verifying eligibility status because that is what the Constitution directs. I am opposed to the Federal Government telling Rhode Island what to do. Third, it would require anyone voting by mail to also include a photocopy of their ID, adding more items to a mail ballot process, particularly for American citizens who are already registered. It will only make it harder to process the ballots in an accurate and timely fashion. It also represents an invasion of privacy because election officials will see actual copies of Americans' most sensitive documents, containing their personal information, in a way that has never happened before. We all treasure the secret ballot, which allows people to go into the polling place, register their approval or disapproval, but not have it identified with them unless they choose. And this bill will upset that tradition and that safeguard on democracy. Fourth, it would require Rhode Island to turn over its voter rolls to the Federal Government, including your Social Security number and other private information. This is especially insidious. It is an unconstitutional intrusion into Rhode Island's authority to determine the time, place, and manner of elections under article I, section 4 of the Constitution. And depending on how President Trump decides to implement this provision, he could require that some people reregister before the 2026 election, and he might just pick out blue States or swing States. But here is the key point: The SAVE Act gives Donald Trump the power to decide who has to reregister and who gets to vote. And, fifth, it would place an unfunded mandate on Rhode Island taxpayers to pay for new voter forms and signage, as well as advertising to alert voters to the dizzying and complex array of Trump- mandated restrictions on their fundamental right to vote. I note that my Republican colleagues used to be opposed to the Federal Government commandeering State officials and micromanaging their affairs. In the New York v. United States case before the Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor wrote that, in her words, ``even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.'' This case was decided in 1992 and overturned Federal mandates for States to dispose of nuclear waste. And in the Supreme Court case of Printz v. United States, Justice Scalia took this anti-commandeering principle even further by writing: We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. . . . Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers . . . to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. . . . Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. This case was decided in 1997 and overturned Federal mandates to States to conduct background checks on firearm purchases. So based on the logic of the SAVE Act, it is fine under the Constitution for State officials to be compelled to help President Trump avoid the accountability that a Democratic Senate or House might bring after November, but State officials cannot be compelled to help clean up nuclear waste or make sure that violent felons don't buy firearms. That doesn't make much sense to me, and I hope my colleagues feel the same way. Now, this legislation has not yet been passed through the Senate because I think it lacks votes on both sides of the aisle. Many of my colleagues know this is bad policy, know that it is unconstitutional, and know that it would disenfranchise millions of their own voters, particularly rural voters. They know that the SAVE Act would cause chaos because it is effective immediately. The 2026 elections are already underway. Several States, like Texas, have already had primary elections. And all of my Republican colleagues were elected under the State-run election system that this bill would decimate. But today, because Trump has said so, they are claiming that this very system is rigged and must be completely overhauled, with immediate effect. President Trump realizes the SAVE Act doesn't have the votes to become law, so he is running his usual playbook to try and implement pieces of this legislation in a lawless and haphazard manner. First, Trump's Department of Justice has tried to amass private and personal voter roll data from nearly every single State. It has sued 30 States plus the District of Columbia for refusing to comply with those demands. I am proud that my State of Rhode Island is among them. But DOJ is not fighting fairly in court. According to reporting by WIRED Magazine, DOJ lawyers misled the Federal judge in Rhode Island overseeing this case about how the Federal Government is using this data. The lead DOJ lawyer initially told the judge that the Federal Government had not conducted any analysis on that data. But 2 weeks ago, DOJ filed a brief, in their words, ``to correct and clarify the record that preliminary internal data analysis of the nonpublic voter registration data has begun.'' They are using sophisticated cyber and AI tools to generate the list of people, I believe, who they think should not vote. That is very startling and disturbing. DOJ is already taking incredibly sensitive data--driver's license numbers, dates of birth, even Social Security numbers--and gearing up to remove people from the rolls. They are doing this even though the SAVE Act is not even the law. And, mind you, the lawyers at DOJ who are doing this are not career prosecutors who do things by the book. They are being led by Eric Neff, a partisan loyalist to Donald Trump, a member of the MAGA movement, who helped Trump perpetuate the Big Lie that the 2020 elections were stolen. And that is exactly what they are preparing to do for 2026 and 2028. Second, Trump has signed an Executive order to make it virtually impossible to vote by mail. He is trying to demand that the Postal Service deny a mail ballot from any voter who is not preapproved by his administration. That is a gross violation of States' constitutional authority to run elections, and that is an illegal and unfunded mandate for the Postal Service, which is already in deep financial trouble and has not been a part of the Federal Government since Richard Nixon was President. You can bet that, under Trump's direction, the Postal Service, which is supposed to do the ministerial function of collecting and delivering the mail, will be conscripted to support his power grab. I am very proud to be here today, joined by my colleagues, in sounding the alarm about this bill. We want to help our fellow citizens participate in our elections because only their participation will ensure that the government is truly accountable to the people it represents. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will understand that and oppose these efforts to suppress the right to vote, which is a fundamental right of the people and has been protected by generations of American men and women wearing the uniform in the United States. And not only do we dishonor the Constitution through this bill; in my view, we dishonor their sacrifice. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me commend my colleague Senator Whitehouse for his excellent remarks that show all the dangers of the SAVE Act. And like my colleague, I rise today to speak out against the deceptively named SAVE America Act, a bill that would create new barriers for American citizens to exercise their most important right: the right to vote. The success of our Nation, both as a source of opportunity for all Americans and as an inspiration for freedom-loving people everywhere, has depended upon strong civic engagement from all Americans. When more Americans vote, our government is more representative of the people. It is more responsive to their needs. It has more legitimacy, and it is a better steward of their tax dollars and public resources. I am here to support laws that make it easier for American citizens to vote. The SAVE America Act will not do that. In fact, it will suppress the right to vote. The SAVE Act is being portrayed as a simple voter ID bill that is supported by a vast majority of Americans. If the bill simply required every American to show an ID at the polls, then I would not be ringing such a loud alarm. I represent a State that has a sensible voter ID law and that regularly reviews its voter rolls. This approach has been extremely effective. The SAVE Act does not simply require everyone to prove their identity when they vote; instead, it requires them to prove their citizenship at the time of registration. Now, that sounds very simple and very appealing, and people might ask: What is the difference if you have to prove citizenship to register versus showing your ID at the polling place? But as I will explain, proving citizenship at the time of registration requires a total and complete overhaul of our election system and will force millions of American citizens to scramble to gather the right documentation--if they can ever do so at all--while imposing very costly and burdensome unfunded mandates on the States. That is a charitable version, which assumes that this bill is a good- faith effort to improve election integrity and security. But make no mistake, this bill is a bad-faith effort to help Donald Trump and his potential successors stay in power no matter what the voters say in 2026 and 2028. It is loaded up with additional measures that allow the Federal Government, under his control, to deter people from voting and then to challenge people's votes after they are cast. It is designed to make people fearful that our elections are not safe and secure. That includes every single election that my current colleagues won. Now, if our elections are so rife with cheating and fraud, as my Republican colleagues would lead you to believe, then do they also think their own election victories are tainted or illegitimate? I think this is a question that the sponsors of the SAVE Act need to answer before we vote. Here is how the SAVE Act bolsters the tremendous power and resources of the Federal Government and places them at Donald Trump's disposal. The bill compels the States to share their most sensitive information--their full voter rolls--with the Department of Homeland Security, a Department that has flagrantly violated the American people's civil liberties under the Trump administration. The bill requires the States to review their voter rolls and purge them of people who have not shown ``documentary proof of citizenship,'' which, based on current law, could encompass millions of law-abiding American citizens. That is right. Technically, millions of Americans could be wiped off the rolls as soon as this bill is passed and signed. The bill establishes a private right of action allowing anyone to challenge a State official for registering voters that the litigant believes are illegitimate, which means every American's registration is now at risk of being questioned or invalidated. This will open the floodgates to thousands, perhaps millions, of frivolous cases and tangle every election up in knots with never-ending litigation. Indeed, given the record of filing outlandish lawsuits after the 2020 election, it is not hard to imagine that Donald Trump will use this law to contest the registration of everyone he believes is opposed or at least in areas the election is expected to be close.

Mr. REED. No, I will not yield. By the way, these mandates and requirements would be effective immediately, meaning they must be implemented for the 2026 election, which, I should point out, is already underway. There are primaries that have been completed in several States, and one could raise issues, if this bill passes, on the outcome of those primaries simply by invoking what the SAVE Act does, which is to question the validity of one's citizenship. Of course, there is no one better suited to exploit this confusion and chaos than Donald Trump. That is how he has operated as a businessman, as a candidate, and as an elected official. When the bogus suits on the 2020 election results that he and his surrogates filed failed in court after court--62 times--he fomented an insurrection on January 6, 2021, in an effort to cling to power illegitimately. On that day, 46 of my Republican colleagues had the fortitude to say no to Trump and voted to certify the election, which means they acknowledge the fact that Trump won in 2020. Today, many of these colleagues are prepared to hand Trump powerful new tools to subvert free and fair elections. They know what Trump will do with this power, but they are willing to hand it to him anyway. President Trump said that he wants the Federal Government, under his command, to ``take over'' elections and ``nationalize the voting.'' The SAVE Act is the vehicle for him to do that. Does anyone really believe that Donald Trump--the man who stoked that insurrection in which we all fled for safety off this floor, a man who has never accepted an electoral defeat even when the other candidate got more votes--all of a sudden genuinely cares about election integrity? Nobody should be fooled into thinking that. Since the Civil War until now, our history has been all about securing the right to vote for all Americans--women, African Americans, and young people who could be called upon to fight and die for their country. Now the Party of Lincoln has shed its proud legacy by advancing policies that would disqualify tens of millions of Americans from voting. If the SAVE Act is enacted, it will be the latest assault on voting rights that we have seen under the Trump administration through partisan gerrymandering, which he insisted upon and which was unique-- perhaps unprecedented historically--of a President asking to redistrict before the 10-year census window, the deadly insurrection of January 6, as I mentioned, and the subsequent mass pardons of those individuals who tried to overturn an election. Also looming in the background is the Supreme Court, which has gutted campaign finance laws, nullified key parts of the Voting Rights Act, and declined to prevent gerrymandering that has interfered with the bedrock principle of ``one person, one vote.'' Let me now discuss the specific reasons that the SAVE Act is so dangerous and why I will oppose it. Simply put, the SAVE Act could disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans, and I cannot support any bill that makes it harder for law-abiding American citizens to vote. Now, I can see people saying: What is the big deal about making someone show ID? Well, like many slick sales pitches, this policy is really a bunch of ``gotchas'' that will stand between millions of voters and the ballot box. Under current law, a vast majority of Americans vote by attesting to their citizenship and by showing a government-issued photo identification card--usually a driver's license--showing that person listed on the voter rolls is the person who is actually casting the vote. The penalties for violating these requirements are severe. This has made the system simple and secure. Indeed, instances of voter fraud are so rare that calling them minuscule would be a gross overestimate. But under the SAVE Act, a person will need to demonstrate their citizenship in order to register to vote. That can be accomplished only through either a U.S. passport or through a government-issued photo identification card plus a birth certificate with a name that matches what is on the photo ID. According to the Brennan Center, more than 9 percent of voting-age Americans--those are 21 million people--don't have documents sufficient to prove their citizenship at this time, either a passport or a birth certificate that is readily available. Maybe they are at the home of another family member or are stored in a safety deposit box. And 4 million Americans don't have these documents available at all for many different reasons. Maybe they were lost, destroyed, or stolen. These millions of Americans are most at risk of being prevented from voting. Americans can, of course, use a passport as documentary proof of citizenship, but more than half of Americans--an estimated 150 million to 200 million citizens--do not have a passport, and to get one, you need to find your birth certificate and a government-issued photo ID, submit the paperwork, pay $165, and then wait a month for it to arrive, which would really bother someone who suddenly, in October, decides that they must vote, and they are legally entitled to do so but can't get a passport. Proponents of the bill say that Americans can just use a REAL ID to satisfy the requirement. This is a State-issued driver's license which complies with Federal security standards established after 9/11 to limit counterfeiting; and the SAVE Act does say that a REAL ID is acceptable. It says we will accept the REAL ID so long as it ``indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States,'' but that is a false premise. Fifteen secretaries of state, including Gregg Amore of Rhode Island, wrote: REAL IDs do not indicate citizenship status. Even if the federal laws for REAL ID were amended, the nearly 140 million REAL IDs that have been issued over the last decade could not be used as proof of citizenship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the secretary of state of Rhode Island be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Now, in Texas, for example, to get a REAL ID, an applicant ``must provide proof of lawful presence in the United States.'' That is according to the instructions to form DL-53, which is the document the Texas Department of Public Safety uses to inform noncitizens of the documentation that they can use to get a REAL ID. Yes, that is correct. You don't need to be a citizen to get a REAL ID in Texas. For example, individuals seeking asylum are eligible for a Texas REAL ID if they provide ``immigration documentation with an alien number.'' So noncitizens who are ineligible to vote can still get REAL IDs. By the way, a REAL ID issued by Texas does not indicate the holder's country of citizenship. So, in Texas, having a REAL ID won't allow you to register to vote under the SAVE Act. Now, some people may still think that it is easier to get acceptable documents and register to vote in person, but that hasn't been the experience of my constituent who wrote me: My wife is a native Rhode Islander. We just secured a certified copy of her [Rhode Island] birth certificate from the State Archives a few weeks ago--primarily to ensure that she's able to vote in 2026 and beyond. The fact that we're forced to think about obtaining certified birth certificates as a precondition of voting is completely antithetical to our actual right to vote. Now, if you don't have money to spare to get the proper documents, if you can't easily get to your town hall to fill in the gaps in your paperwork, if you are just too busy living your life, what are you to do? Faced with these barriers, you may just give up and not vote at all. Let me tick through the Americans who will be the most directly affected if this legislation passes. First, there are 69 million women who have changed their names after getting married. Their birth certificates do not reflect that change. While many of them have access to their original birth certificates, that alone would not be enough to register under the SAVE Act. They will also need to produce official documentation that their name has changed and matches what is on their current government-issued photo ID. Now, if you have been divorced and remarried, good luck getting all that together. This isn't just a barrier for recently married women who haven't gotten around to updating their papers. Women of all ages will be affected. Another one of my constituents reported an enormous headache with just proving her identity in order to get a REAL ID. And, mind you, a REAL ID is just a modern driver's license that doesn't even indicate citizenship status. As a divorced woman it took me 3 visits to get my Real ID. The first time I did not realize I needed my marriage certificate. The second time, I brought the divorce decree and it was not accepted. The third time, I had to go to the town hall and have my marriage certificate made. This bill is so damaging to the women of this country. Can you imagine the hardship that many other women will have to go through not only to get a REAL ID but also to document their citizenship under the system established by the SAVE Act? Another one of my constituents has similar fears about her elderly mother being turned away from the polls: If the SAVE Act gets passed, my husband and I still have the ability to vote. But my 85-year-old mother will not. She does not have a passport and changed her name when she married my father in 1964. Please do not let Trump do this to our female voters. These barriers aren't being faced just by women in blue States. They are being felt in red States too. Take Brandi Halladay from Utah-- Senator Lee's home State. She wrote a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune on March 15: When my 80-year-old mother moved to Utah, she needed to get a new ID and register to vote. She had to show a birth certificate, her marriage license to my father, her divorce papers from my father (in which she kept his last name to match that of her children) and then her marriage license to her second husband. This was the only way to trace the name on her birth certificate to her current last name. This took two trips to the DMV, which was not an easy task for someone of her age who uses a walker, and she was fortunate to have my help in tracking down the relevant documents. Now imagine trying to do this for a person who may have moved frequently over the course of their lives and has lost documents along the way. They will need to contact various offices, possibly across many states and request the appropriate documentation which may also require fees that they may not be able to afford. And imagine someone working two jobs while trying to raise a family needing to do this. Now, my colleague from Utah has sought to minimize these burdens. He has pointed to text in the bill, specifically page 14, line 15, purporting to say that ``if you don't have documentation, you don't have a problem'' and that you can register ``without a single additional document other than what you provide to the government in the form of a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury.'' So if this is true, then what is the purpose of this bill? What the Senator from Utah described is basically the current system, at least in Rhode Island.

Mr. REED. I will not. But this is not the way the bill works. If you review the specific page and line that Senator Lee has referenced, page 14, line 15, and just look a few lines further in that same direction--specifically page 15, line 6--the bill says that anyone submitting a sworn affidavit must also ``submit such other evidence to the appropriate State or local official demonstrating that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and such official will make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently established United States citizenship.'' This section further requires the State or local official to then file their own affidavit that ``the applicant has sufficiently established United States' citizenship.'' And if that official makes an improper determination, then he or she could be put in jail for 5 years. All I am doing is reading the words on the page that we are being asked to enact into law. I am trying to take a textualist approach and derive the original meaning. So this purported exception to alleviate the gross injustice that this bill would inflict upon the 69 million women who have changed their names and the 21 million Americans without ready access to the papers, well, this exception wouldn't deliver them any relief at all. They still must show their papers--which exact ones, no one can say. It will be subject to the decision of the clerk who is attesting to it. Asking the clerk to risk 5 years in jail simply for permission to register to vote doesn't sound like much relief at all. It is another ``gotcha.'' Second, young Americans in college will face issues at the polls. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. This was a critical reform in the Vietnam war era that embodied a simple principle: If you are old enough to fight, you are old enough to vote. It is the height of hypocrisy to place barriers to vote in front of any American citizen who puts his life on the line to keep us safe. Well, in Rhode Island, which has a voter ID law, a college ID is sufficient to show at the polls when voting. But through the SAVE Act, that Rhode Island law would be invalidated; a college ID is not on the list of ``valid photo identification'' in the SAVE Act. And I will bet there are very few college-age students bringing their birth certificates with them to school. At their parents' rightful insistence, these documents are probably kept locked away at home. And very few college students go through the trouble of getting a local driver's license because they only are temporarily living where they attend school. So young Americans may disproportionately get turned away, maybe be denied the right to participate in civic life, even though they have so much riding on it. Concerns that many Americans will be stripped of their voting rights are not theoretical or hypothetical. We have seen this play out very recently. In 2013, Kansas implemented a State version of the SAVE Act. According to the Associated Press, it was ``one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory.'' In other words, it was a total failure, and we are on the verge of replicating that failure nationwide. It was such a failure because over 30,000 Kansans-- that is 12 percent of everyone seeking to register--saw their registration suspended or invalidated. Fortunately, in 2018, the court stepped in and invalidated the Kansas law before it could do more damage. As Trump and the Republicans are purportedly trying to do now, Kansas was trying to prevent noncitizens from voting. It turns out that this is a completely illusory problem. In Kansas, only three noncitizens registered to vote each year from 1999 through 2012. That is a total of 39--or 0.002 percent--of all registered voters. The court found that these were nominal cases, explained by administrative error and confusion. And of the 39, only 11 actually voted. When invalidating the Kansas law, the court found the following fundamental and fatal flaws: The law had acted as a deterrent to registration and voting for substantially more eligible Kansans than it has prevented ineligible voters from registering to vote. At least one applicant testified that he opted not to apply to register to vote again, despite possessing documentary proof of citizenship, because of the burdensome experience of being held in suspense and prevented from voting in 2014 due to the law. Based on this record, the magnitude of the burden on unregistered eligible Kansas voters cannot be justified. The evidence at trial demonstrated that the documentary proof of citizenship law disproportionately impacts duly qualified registration applicants, while only nominally preventing noncitizen voter registration. It also may have the inadvertent effect of eroding, instead of maintaining, confidence in the electoral system. Imagine disqualifying 30,000 legitimate Kansas voters because, over a 13-year period, a total of 39 noncitizens were mistakenly added to the voting rolls. This unfortunate episode in Kansas is a cautionary tale for us here in Congress. We should learn from their mistake. We should be humbled by their mistake. And, more importantly, we should not repeat their mistake. In Kansas, it made no sense to punish 30,000 law- abiding American citizens who wanted to vote, just to prevent 11 noncitizens from voting. The way to solve this election problem of noncitizen voting is simply to enforce existing Federal and State law, that only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote, with strong penalties for noncompliance. Under Federal law, it is a felony for noncitizens to vote. Section 1015 of title XVIII of the U.S. Code states that: Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The Rhode Island Constitution states, ``Every citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen (18) years or over who has had residence and home in this state for thirty (30) days next preceding the time of voting, who has resided thirty (30) days in the town or city from which such citizen desires to vote'' is eligible to vote. Under current law, to register in Rhode Island, all voters must attest to their U.S. citizenship. They must ``swear or affirm that I am a U.S. citizen.'' Then check a ``yes'' or ``no'' box for whether they are a citizen of the United States. They are warned on the registration form--a simple, one-page document--that ``if you sign this form and know it to be false, you can be convicted and fined up to $5,000 or jailed for up to 10 years.'' And then to vote in Rhode Island, all voters must show a valid photo ID. These laws are enforced. They are an effective deterrent. They have made our elections safe and secure, and that is why noncitizen voting is so rare. According to Christine Stenning, the President of the League of Women Voters in Rhode Island, ``There is no evidence that noncitizen voting has ever been significant enough to impact an election's outcome.'' Research from the Heritage Foundation, perhaps a preeminent Trump- aligned conservative think tank, found only 77 instances of noncitizen voting from 1999 until 2023, each of which was investigated by the authority. That is 77 out of hundreds of millions, maybe even more than a billion, votes cast during this time period. During the 2016 election, an exhaustive study by the Brennan Center found that at least 30 cases of noncitizen voting were referred for investigation. And in Trump's first term, 2017 through 2021, only 19 people were indicted for voting without U.S. citizenship. In 2024, the numbers looked very similar. The top election official in Utah reviewed all 2.1 million registered voters and found just one ``confirmed noncitizen'' registered to vote, and that person never voted. In Idaho, officials found 36 ``very likely'' registered noncitizens, and not all of them voted. The secretary of state of Idaho said that ``out of the million- plus registered voters we started with, we're down to 10 thousandths of a percent'' of the overall count--``10 thousandths of a percent.'' In Louisiana, investigators found 390 noncitizen registrants out of 2.9 million. Only 79 had voted in an election over the last several decades; in Montana, only 23 possible noncitizen registrants out of approximately 785,000; in Georgia, only 20 out of 8.2 million; in Maricopa County, AZ, only 2 out of 2.5 million. Now, none of these people should have registered or voted, and they should be punished for breaking the law, but we are talking about a handful of votes. We do not need a complete overhaul of our election system and to potentially strip millions of American citizens' voting rights when the evidence demonstrates that this purported issue is already addressed by current law. According to an op-ed by Stephen Richer of the Cato Institute, a famously conservative and Republican-leaning think tank, the results of these State investigations, in his words, ``affirm what is simply common sense. People largely aren't willing to risk their status in the United States--the land of economic opportunity--for the ability to cast one more vote out of hundreds of thousands or millions in a state and hundreds of millions in the country.'' The Wall Street Journal editorial page, a loudspeaker for conservative views, similarly said about the SAVE Act: Although Mr. Trump insists that voter fraud is endemic, his big claims aren't backed by hard evidence. The President recently said illegal aliens are voting in such huge numbers that he won Minnesota three times. Audits in a variety of places--Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Utah, Idaho--have found noncitizen voting and registration to be rare. Other states might be worse, but consider incentives: Illegal immigrants who want to stay are trying to be avoid being noticed by the authorities. Green card holders have much to lose if they commit a crime. Prosecuting violations is good for deterrence, and vigilance is important. Now, you might be thinking that you are a law-abiding citizen or have lived in the same neighborhood for decades and, therefore, you have nothing to worry about if the SAVE Act were enacted--not so. Even if you have been registered for decades and voted without issue, you still should be worried about what the SAVE Act means for you. States would be required to report their full voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security and certify that there are no noncitizens on their list. And the Federal Government can require then States to purge their voter rolls of any suspected noncitizens. Think about it this way: The Department that maintains the ``no fly'' list, which often misidentifies people, will be now maintaining a no vote list. What could go wrong? There is not a single State that commonly requires documentary proof of citizenship on par with the SAVE Act. So how will the States be able to meet this new mandate and avoid voter purges? The short answer is: They can't--at least not easily. So there is a real risk that States will take a conservative approach to compliance and require all their voters to reregister with documentary proof of citizenship. In addition, the SAVE Act does not contain any express language protecting voters who have already registered under the current system, so there is also a risk that Trump's DOJ could use authority under the SAVE Act to find a State's entire voter rollout of compliance with the ``documentary proof'' of citizenship requirement. If that happens, someone who has voted for decades, and lived in the same home, could be forced to reregister. Consider those 30,000 U.S. citizens in Kansas who were in the exact same boat and were denied the ability to register to vote. If you can't furnish the required documentation or you are busy and miss the window to reregister, well, you simply won't be able to vote in the 2026 election and maybe beyond that. The SAVE Act will centralize all States' voter rolls in a Federal Government database. According to the Campaign Legal Center, ``this is a plain attempt to bully states into sharing voters' sensitive personal information with the Federal Government. Making matters worse, the SAVE America Act places no restrictions on what the Federal government can do with the sensitive data once DHS receives it.'' That is sensitive personal information for around 75 percent of the Nation's adults. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has said that ``DHS's desire to turn the SAVE program into a de facto national citizen registry raises significant civil liberties concerns.'' My Republican colleagues should tell the American people whether this invasion of privacy is worth it. I do not personally believe that it is. Such a database is an irresistible one-stop shop for hackers and foreign governments to steal America's most sensitive personal information. Again, this is not a theoretical concern. A whistleblower report from last week alleged that a former DOGE representative with ``God-level access'' to Social Security Administration servers copied data onto a thumb drive and planned to share it with a private employer. The data allegedly included the ``Numident'' and the ``Master Death File'' containing more than 500 million living and dead Americans, including Social Security numbers, places and dates of birth, citizenship, race and ethnicity, and parents' names. We have seen the current administration be incredibly sloppy and careless with classified information, from then-former President Trump taking documents with security classification markings to Mar-a-Lago and storing them in his bathroom to the current Secretary of Defense sharing military strike plans via Signal with a journalist. In 2015, the Office of Personnel Management announced that it had been a target of a data breach targeting over 22 million records involving security clearances in which Social Security numbers, names, dates and places of birth, and addresses were exfiltrated by hackers working on behalf of the Chinese Government. Now, ask yourself if you would trust Secretary Noem and Attorney General Bondi to keep the personal information of the 200 million registered voters safe. Would you trust them with your name, address, date of birth, driver's license number, and biometric information like height, weight, hair color, and eye color? The SAVE Act asks you to place that trust in them. I personally would not. So the SAVE Act centralizes election administration with the Federal Government. It reveals another fatal flaw in the bill which, again, replicates mistakes and the problems with the Kansas law. It is this centralization that makes the SAVE Act, in my view, unconstitutional. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution reads: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators. So the Constitution says that the States play a role in election administration. It says the Congress place a role in election administration. It does not say anything about the Executive branch playing a role in election administration. And yet that is exactly what the SAVE Act would do. It gives DOJ and DHS, which are part of the Executive branch, immense power to determine the sufficiency of State voter registration laws and then to mess around with State procedures to actually conduct elections. The Wall Street Journal editorial page said March 18 that: The decentralized nature of American elections is a source of resilience, and Republicans rightly opposed President Biden's attempt to federalize voting rules on the lax California model. Have they given up federalist principles? Well, it appears they have. Now, one could argue that if the Congress intervenes, then the constitutional requirement is met, but we have seen daily this administration ignore Congress, ignore the law, and ignore the Constitution. This will be a pass for President Trump to exploit the elections that are before us. And you can bet that there will be lawsuits initiated as soon as the ink is dry with President Trump's signature. And before the Supreme Court ultimately weighs in, there will be litigation in district courts and the appellate courts across the country. There will be conflicting rulings, and the constitutionality of the SAVE Act will almost certainly not be resolved before the 2026 election--possibly not even until the 2028 election. In the meantime, there will be mass confusion about the rules that govern those elections. And the 2026 elections, as I said, are already underway. At least six States have already had their primary elections. If the rules suddenly change or there are mass purges of the voter rolls between the primary elections and the general elections, then that will undermine the integrity of the election far more than the illusory problem of noncitizen voting. In addition to these constitutional infirmities, there are tremendous unfunded mandates and burdens that will be placed on the States if this law is enacted. According to Rhode Island secretary of state Gregg Amore, the State government would need to change its voter systems and forms. It may need to purchase new voting machines and equipment, and it would need to pursue a significant public outreach campaign to educate voters about changes in the law. But the SAVE Act provides zero dollars to cover these costs. States and localities will need to cover this unfunded mandate, and that means higher taxes or more debt. With regard to Rhode Island, first, Rhode Island would be required under the SAVE Act to essentially eliminate registration by mail and online. Under current law, any Rhode Islander can print and then fill out a voter registration form, get their signature notarized, and mail it to their town hall or they can complete the process entirely online--they can do it entirely online. The SAVE Act requires anyone who registers by mail to also present documentary proof of citizenship in person at the election office by the registration deadline. While the election is silent about online registration, I am assuming the same rule applies. So Rhode Islanders will need to spend precious time and inconvenience to go in person to show their proof of citizenship, which means that this process of mail-in registration will be practically eliminated. As I said at the beginning of these remarks, what I would like to see is to make voting easier for American citizens, not to give my constituents yet another headache, place additional demands on their time, and impose, frankly, ridiculous government mandates--especially when it comes to exercising their fundamental rights to vote. Second, Rhode Island would need to narrow its list of acceptable photo ID to present at the polls when voting. Rhode Island law permits voters at the polls to verify their registration and identity through ID cards that are issued by educational institutions and government- issued medical cards. The SAVE Act would not permit these cards. Rhode Island currently permits voting without photo identification if accompanied by a birth certificate, Social Security card, or government-issued medical card. The SAVE Act does not permit nonphoto IDs to vote under any circumstances. This example alone should shred any notion that the SAVE Act is a simple voter ID law. If it were, then the very sensible procedures currently used in Rhode Island would be acceptable. They have been in operation since 2012 without any issues. And yet, my Republican colleagues would meddle in them for no discernible and compelling reason. Third, Rhode Island would need to submit its own voter rolls to DHS and purge anyone suspected of being a noncitizen within 30 days of enactment and then on an ongoing basis. The State must submit its voter rolls to the DHS ``SAVE'' system to identify noncitizens and then purge them from its rolls. Anyone identified as a noncitizen who believes that is a mistake must meet the new documentary proof of citizenship requirement and reregister. Rhode Island and many other States--red States and blue States alike--are actively litigating with DOJ to rebuff the Federal Government's attempts to obtain its voter rolls. DOJ hasn't even said why it wants this information. Nobody should believe it is for any legitimate purpose. DOJ has been losing in court, and this legislation would essentially end this litigation against the States' interests. DOJ should be defending what it is doing in court, not coming to Congress for a bailout, nor should we give them a bailout. This meddling by the Federal Government is completely unnecessary. Rhode Island already undergoes regular voter maintenance efforts. A statewide voter mailing in 2020 ultimately resulted in 60,619 inactive voter registrations being removed from the State's voter list. Since 2023, election officials in Rhode Island have removed 107,738 voters from the voter lists through maintenance and processes. In November 2025, the Rhode Island secretary of state launched the latest effort to ensure the State's rolls are accurate. The government mailed every single registered voter in the State asking them to review the information in their voter record and update any inaccurate or outdated information. Rhode Island is already a participant in information-sharing agreements to identify potential instances of election fraud through the Electronic Registration Information Center or ERIC, which 25 States use for voter list maintenance and identification of potential instances of election fraud. Our States are constantly and actively determining that their rolls do not contain people ineligible to vote. Fourth, Rhode Islanders will need to pay to comply with the new Federal mandates. The State, as I indicated, must conduct a marketing campaign to ensure that Rhode Islanders are aware of the requirement to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register. The State must notify every person who registers by mail of the requirement to provide documentary proof of citizenship prior to voting. The State must change its registration forms and its signage at the polls. As noted above, the State must review its entire voter rolls for citizen status. So the SAVE Act says that Rhode Island--a State where noncitizen voting is punishable by 10 years in prison and where everyone must show ID at the polls--would need to radically overhaul its voting system and pass those costs on to the taxpayers in order to meet new Federal mandates. The proposal on the table is to throw out State rules about voter ID and require what is effectively a national ID, while ignoring current law that already makes it a serious crime for noncitizens to vote. That is a raw deal to fix a nonexistent problem. This is so dangerous because it will break a system that successfully prevents fraud and replace it with one that makes it harder for American citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote. So why are they doing this? The real reason, in my view, is to support Trump's Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen, even though he lost by 7 million votes and even though 46 of my Republican colleagues voted to certify the election. They are doing this in service of President Trump's ego and his insatiable desire for power--power that he is using to take revenge on his political enemies and reward his political allies; power that he is using to personally enrich himself and his cronies through corrupt business deals, while he leaves the American people holding the bag through his tariffs; power that he is using to no longer provide Medicaid to children and seniors, while funding yet another ``forever war'' in the Middle East; and power that he is using to remain above the law, immune from prosecution, based on a sweeping Supreme Court ruling that he is protected so long as he is President. Let's examine the record of how Trump is executing this power grab. It is systemic. It began on day one, and this is a component of that effort. He has gutted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security that defends our Nation's infrastructure from cyber attacks. This includes all kinds of election components, including voter registration databases, voting machines, and related IT systems. Congress created CISA during Trump's first term to avoid a repeat of the 2016 election, in which the Russian Government sowed misinformation to aid the Trump campaign. CISA provides election offices nationwide with intelligence briefings and cyber security systems. In 2023 and 2024, it conducted 700 cyber security assessments for local election jurisdictions across the country. But upon returning to office, Trump immediately froze all CISA election security work. DOGE cut 130 employees from CISA, including its election security advisers. Trump dismissed the head of the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, which provide crucial intelligence to CISA regarding foreign cyber threats to election infrastructure. Trump terminated or cut funding for the public-private and State-Federal partnerships that CISA uses as conduits for the Federal Government to help the States. At CISA, Trump installed one of his cronies to be his eyes and ears: the 2020 election denier Marci McCarthy, who was the chair of the DeKalb County, GA, Republican Party and has amplified false claims of voter fraud in Georgia and spread disinformation about voting machines. She obviously has zero cyber security expertise. (Mr. LEE assumed the Chair.) Democrats want free and fair elections that have integrity. The biggest threat to achieving that is not the illusory problem of noncitizen voting but, rather, outside threats from foreign actors, like the Russian Government, who have actually tried to manipulate election outcomes and who have sophisticated capabilities in cyber space. According to the 2025 ``Annual Threat Assessment'' prepared by the Director of National Intelligence--that is, Tulsi Gabbard, by the way, who is not exactly known as a Russia hawk--``Moscow probably believes information operations efforts to influence U.S. elections are advantageous, regardless of whether they affect election outcomes, because reinforcing doubt in the integrity of the U.S. electoral system achieves one of its core objectives.'' Defunding and gutting CISA is entirely consistent with the core Russian objective to sow doubt in our democratic process. The ``Annual Threat Assessment'' goes on to forecast that ``Moscow's malign influence activities will continue for the foreseeable future and will almost certainly increase in sophistication and volume.'' If Trump were actually committed to election integrity, he would not have gutted the Federal Agency responsible for securing our election infrastructure against this threat. But that is exactly what he has done. As if to remove any doubt that Trump's primary objective is perpetrating his Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen and create the circumstances to perhaps do the same thing in 2026 and 2028, he issued an Executive order directing the Department of Justice to investigate the former leader of CISA, Chris Krebs, after he had the temerity to say that ``the 2020 election was the most secure in American history. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'' By the way, at the same time, Trump canceled Mr. Krebs' security clearance. Over 40 cyber security experts have condemned the ``political persecution'' of Krebs. They wrote in an open letter that ``by placing Krebs in the crosshairs, the President is signaling that cybersecurity professionals whose findings do not align with his narrative risk having their businesses and livelihoods subjected to spurious and retaliatory targeting.'' Here we have a prime example of Donald Trump using the machinery of the Federal Government to intimidate into silence those who refute his Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen and plagued by widespread fraud, and he is gearing up to do the same thing in 2026 and 2028. Trump has stacked DOJ, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and other parts of his administration with cronies, sycophants, and loyalists who perpetrated the Big Lie in 2020 and organized the Stop the Steal movement that culminated in the deadly insurrection on January 6. Notable examples include the following individuals: Harmeet Dhillon, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who represented President Trump and his campaign in the past and continues to amplify Trump's debunked claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election; Maureen Riordan, the recently departed Acting Chief of the Voting Section at DOJ, who is another election skeptic and defender of voter suppression tactics, who has reiterated unfounded claims of widespread voting by noncitizens; Eric Neff, the current Chief of the Voting Section at DOJ, who has been leading this dangerous effort to compel the States--including Rhode Island--to turn over their voter rolls. Mr. Neff has been reprimanded for his past work in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, where he pursued a case against an election software company based on evidence provided by a conspiracy- driven election denier group called True the Vote. The charges were ultimately dropped, Neff was put on leave, and the L.A. taxpayers were stuck paying a $5 million settlement. Ed Martin, the Pardon Attorney at DOJ, represented January 6 rioters in court and has defended Trump's claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election. Kurt Olsen, the White House Director of Election Security: Mr. Olsen was a Trump campaign lawyer who worked on the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, including being part of the Texas attorney general's attempt to get the Supreme Court to stop four swing States from certifying Biden's 2020 victory over Trump. Heather Honey, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Election Integrity at DHS: Ms. Honey worked closely with Cleta Mitchell, who participated in Trump's infamous call with the Georgia secretary of state, pressuring him to ``find'' sufficient votes for Trump to win the State, which I think most casual observers would cite as one of the most egregious attempts to influence votes illegally that we have seen-- certainly, from a President. Honey was on the ground in Maricopa County, AZ, for a Republican- backed audit seeking proof of fraud in the 2020 election. Honey pushed a conspiracy that there were more votes counted than were cast in Pennsylvania. And Gregg Phillips, the Director of the Office of Response and Recovery at FEMA: Mr. Phillips was a board member of True the Vote, the organization that traffics in conspiracy theories that Mr. Neff used to pursue a faulty case against an election software company. Phillips made the outrageous claim that he reviewed voter rolls with over 3 million noncitizens on the rolls in 2016--absolutely preposterous. The machinery of the Federal Government has already been deployed, through these individuals and others, to relitigate the 2020 election and intimidate election officials into doing Trump's bidding in 2026 and 2028. On January 28, the FBI raided the election office in Fulton County, GA, and actually seized ballots. Fulton County contains the State's biggest metropolitan area--Atlanta--where half a million votes were cast in 2020. According to court documents, the reasons for this raid were the same claims and conspiracy theories that underpinned Trump's Big Lie about the 2020 election. It was based on a referral from Kurt Olsen, whom I discussed above. He was a key person who tried to steal the 2020 election and is currently working in the White House, which historically and for good reason, has not directed law enforcement, which is supposed to be nonpartisan and based on facts and evidence and the law, not the whim of the President. The FBI's affidavit claimed a discrepancy in votes cast and votes counted of 3 percent, but, in reality, those numbers were off by less than 0.2 percent. That the FBI would mislead the court to justify this raid about 2020 should give everyone tremendous concern about what kinds of falsehoods will underpin efforts to subvert results in 2026 and 2028. A similar ``investigation'' about the 2020 election is underway by the FBI in Maricopa County, AZ, which is the State's largest metropolitan area. So why is the FBI investigating an election that occurred 6 years ago, and why is the FBI focusing on the biggest cities in the two States that swung the election against Trump? Again, it is to perpetrate the Big Lie and to lay the groundwork for interference in the 2026 and 2028 elections. It is not just the Federal Government that has been stacked with election deniers who are dedicated to making sure Trump remains in power. Trump has also installed allies at every level of State and local election offices. These allies stand ready to do his bidding and disenfranchise large numbers of voters who oppose him. These efforts by Trump's enablers have already disenfranchised American citizens. In North Carolina, Republicans sought to cancel 65,000 votes in a judicial election last year. An estimated 2,000 to 8,000 of the votes were military and overseas voters. Speaking of the military, Trump may be preparing to use the National Guard in order to deter Americans from exercising their constitutional right to vote. He signed an Executive order requiring each State to be ready to deploy a ``National Guard Response Force'' with a total of 23,750 members nationwide that can be ordered into States without the consent of local Governors. And under existing law, the President has command of a ``Quick Reaction Force'' of 2,000 National Guard members. He can deploy them nationwide to any State within 8 hours of notice. Trump may try to abuse his authority as Commander in Chief to place these forces in polling places--perhaps in Fulton County or Maricopa County--under the guise of ``protecting'' them. They could be used to quell protests if Trump tries to steal another election. Trump famously did not deploy the Guard to defend the Capitol on January 6. But now the pendulum may well swing in the other direction. He could preemptively deploy the Guard to deter people from voting. Steve Bannon last month on a podcast stated: [W]e're going to have ICE surround the polls come November. President Trump has to nationalize the election. You've got to put--not just, I think, ICE--you've got to call up the 82nd and 101st Airborne on the Insurrection Act. You've got to get around every poll and make sure only people with IDs, people . . . actually registered to vote and people that are United States citizens vote in this election. So here you have Steve Bannon--someone who is very close to Trump and who essentially served as his consigliere in the first administration-- openly saying that the military and ICE should be enforcing the SAVE Act. Steve Bannon said he wants the 82nd Airborne to do voter intimidation. I served in the 82nd Airborne. I was a platoon leader and a company commander. It is so offensive to our values and so denigrating for the men and women in uniform for Steve Bannon to suggest that they should be turned against their own neighbors, to be conscripted to help President Trump cling to power. This is not what happens in functioning democracies; this is what happens under authoritarian regimes and in dictatorships. Lest anyone believe Mr. Bannon's attempt to cultivate himself as a deeply read intellectual, I would note that it is a criminal offense for military officers to do what he has proposed. Section 592 of title 18 of the U.S. Code says that if a commander sends troops under his command into a polling place, he can go to jail for up to 5 years: Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force shall be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States. That is the military forces. This notion of ICE being at the polls is just as concerning. Agents have detained law-abiding American citizens who have gotten caught up in Trump's mass deportation campaign. So there are some citizens who would be justified in thinking that it is still risky to go to the polls, lest you inadvertently get picked up. What is the criteria for ICE to stop, detain, and harass people? It seems to be how they look, not what is in their hearts, not that they are dedicated Americans, not that they may be police officers in civilian uniforms, not that they may be former veterans. If ICE will be asking people to ``show their papers'' before they even enter the polling place, then that adds more time, more process, and more complexity to something that should be quick, easy, and simple. Finally, even if you do not cast a vote, the bill contains a dangerous private right of action allowing anyone to challenge another voter's registration status. That provision can be used with great effect to challenge large numbers of votes in States and localities that elect non-Trumpers. Even if those claims are meritless and ultimately dismissed, they will tangle the courts with so much litigation that we will not know the actual election results for months on end. That sows additional mistrust in the process and, depending on the judges who hear these cases, could result in mass disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens who vote. Given the data I have recited about the paltry numbers of noncitizen voters, reviews of the voter rolls after the fact and strong enforcement of existing criminal penalties are more than sufficient to achieve the purpose of allowing American citizens to vote and encouraging them to do so. So this is not about election integrity or protecting the will of voters. This is about voter suppression and voter intimidation. This is about keeping Trump and his gang in power. This about Trump knowing that he is deeply unpopular, that he could be on a path to lose fair and square and trying to bend the rules and create the machinery for the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security and even the military to do his personal bidding to cling to power. If that happens, if he is successful, then we will no longer be a democracy. Lest anyone still think that this bill is about ``election integrity'' and not 100 percent about Donald Trump's power grab, my Republican colleagues have added two provisions covering ``culture war'' provisions that denigrate trans rights--Donald Trump's favorite boogeyman and his personal pet issuing having precisely nothing to do with the alleged scourge of noncitizen voting. I am proud tonight to join my Democratic colleagues in sounding the alarm. We want to help our fellow citizens participate in our elections because only their participation will ensure that the government is truly accountable to the people it represents. My secretary of state Gregg Amore has said: The SAVE Act deviates from pro-voter and pro-democracy policies that make it easier for people to cast a ballot by placing an undue burden on American citizens. It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote, and requiring documentation proving citizenship effectively creates a poll tax for voters. President Trump is disregarding our country's separation of powers as the SAVE Act makes its way through Congress. This isn't or should not be a partisan endeavor. Democrats and Republicans shouldn't be afraid to face the voters--all the voters--and compete on the basis of our ideas and aspirations. The SAVE Act shows that Trump has a different agenda--consolidating power for himself while subjugating the American people. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will understand that and oppose these efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2026 with Senators Tim Scott, Tina Smith, and James Lankford. Our bipartisan bill will reauthorize the C.W. Bill Young National Marrow Donor Program and the National Cord Blood Inventory, which help individuals diagnosed with leukemia and lymphomas, sickle cell anemia, and rare genetic blood disorders find suitable bone marrow or umbilical cord blood donors. More than 18,000 individuals are diagnosed with diseases like blood cancer and sickle cell disease each year and hope for a blood stem cell or bone marrow transplant to help treat or even cure their disease. Since the 1980s, the public registries created under these programs have been a lifeline for the more than 75 percent of Americans who do not have a matched donor in their families. By strengthening and enhancing the important programs operating these registries, many more Americans will be afforded the opportunity to find a match if they are ever in need. I look forward to swift consideration of this legislation in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and working toward passage in the full Senate.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Educating Medical Professionals and Optimizing Workforce Efficiency and Readiness, EMPOWER, for Health Act with Senator Murkowski. Our bipartisan legislation would reauthorize funding for the title VII health professions programs to help strengthen the distribution, quality, and diversity of the health professions workforce so it is better prepared to meet the country's evolving and emerging health care needs. The title VII health professions programs have a longstanding history of increasing the supply of primary care professionals, expanding access to care in rural and urban underserved areas, and developing a workforce that reflects the Nation's diversity and the needs of patients. At a time when the country is facing persistent health provider shortages, it is critical that we continue to support the programs that build our healthcare workforce, such as scholarships for disadvantaged students, public health and preventive medicine, geriatrics training, area health education centers, oral health training, and primary care medicine. These education and training programs guide current and aspiring health professionals to high-demand careers in areas of greatest need, and this legislation will take an important step in ensuring that these programs can continue to serve students and patients for years to come. Our legislation addresses some ongoing challenges with the Pediatric Subspecialty Loan Repayment Program, clarifying eligibility requirements and making it easier for qualified pediatric subspecialists to apply. I want to thank the stakeholders supporting this bill, including AIDS Action Baltimore, AIDS Foundation Chicago, the AIDS Institute, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the American Public Health Association, the American Society for Microbiology, the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, Big Cities Health Coalition, the Children's Hospital Association, Fast-Track Health, the Gerontological Society of America, the HIV Dental Alliance, the HIV Medicine Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, the National Association of County & City Health Officials, the National Association for Geriatric Education, the National Hispanic Medical Association, NMAC, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists and I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Murkowski in working to pass the EMPOWER for Health Act this year.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2026 with Senators Tim Scott, Tina Smith, and James Lankford. Our bipartisan bill will reauthorize the C.W. Bill Young National Marrow Donor Program and the National Cord Blood Inventory, which help individuals diagnosed with leukemia and lymphomas, sickle cell anemia, and rare genetic blood disorders find suitable bone marrow or umbilical cord blood donors. More than 18,000 individuals are diagnosed with diseases like blood cancer and sickle cell disease each year and hope for a blood stem cell or bone marrow transplant to help treat or even cure their disease. Since the 1980s, the public registries created under these programs have been a lifeline for the more than 75 percent of Americans who do not have a matched donor in their families. By strengthening and enhancing the important programs operating these registries, many more Americans will be afforded the opportunity to find a match if they are ever in need. I look forward to swift consideration of this legislation in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and working toward passage in the full Senate.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Educating Medical Professionals and Optimizing Workforce Efficiency and Readiness, EMPOWER, for Health Act with Senator Murkowski. Our bipartisan legislation would reauthorize funding for the title VII health professions programs to help strengthen the distribution, quality, and diversity of the health professions workforce so it is better prepared to meet the country's evolving and emerging health care needs. The title VII health professions programs have a longstanding history of increasing the supply of primary care professionals, expanding access to care in rural and urban underserved areas, and developing a workforce that reflects the Nation's diversity and the needs of patients. At a time when the country is facing persistent health provider shortages, it is critical that we continue to support the programs that build our healthcare workforce, such as scholarships for disadvantaged students, public health and preventive medicine, geriatrics training, area health education centers, oral health training, and primary care medicine. These education and training programs guide current and aspiring health professionals to high-demand careers in areas of greatest need, and this legislation will take an important step in ensuring that these programs can continue to serve students and patients for years to come. Our legislation addresses some ongoing challenges with the Pediatric Subspecialty Loan Repayment Program, clarifying eligibility requirements and making it easier for qualified pediatric subspecialists to apply. I want to thank the stakeholders supporting this bill, including AIDS Action Baltimore, AIDS Foundation Chicago, the AIDS Institute, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the American Public Health Association, the American Society for Microbiology, the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, Big Cities Health Coalition, the Children's Hospital Association, Fast-Track Health, the Gerontological Society of America, the HIV Dental Alliance, the HIV Medicine Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, the National Association of County & City Health Officials, the National Association for Geriatric Education, the National Hispanic Medical Association, NMAC, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists and I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Murkowski in working to pass the EMPOWER for Health Act this year.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, service is a core American value. We take inspiration from those who have answered the call to serve, whether in defense of our Nation abroad or in strengthening our communities at home. Finding common cause through service is how we can overcome the major social, economic, and environmental challenges of our time. That is why I am proud to join Congressman John Larson of Connecticut and Senators Coons, Duckworth, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Baldwin, and Kim in introducing the America's Call to Improving Opportunities Now, ACTION, for National Service Act. Our legislation calls for a historic expansion of the number of service opportunities available to Americans and an increased investment in those who serve. The ACTION for National Service Act will honor our national value of service, while addressing the barriers that limit citizens' opportunities to serve. Our legislation will set us on a path to 1 million national service positions within 10 years. It will increase the education award so that an individual completing 2 full years of service will earn the equivalent of 4 years of the average instate tuition at a public college or university. The ACTION for National Service Act will also ease other financial barriers to service by increasing the living allowance and eliminating the tax liability for the education awards and living stipends. The bill calls for a robust outreach effort to ensure that all young people will be made aware of the many opportunities to serve their country and their communities. Finally, the ACTION for National Service Act calls for elevating the Corporation for National and Community Service to a Cabinet-level Agency and establishes a national service foundation to leverage private sector resources to support national service activities. Mr. President, this is the 250th anniversary of our Nation's founding. As we reflect on the values and the actions that have helped America prosper, we should recognize the essential role that service has played and restore it as a fundamental national value. We must make the commitment to invest in the education and professional development of those who are willing to dedicate their time and energy in service to their neighbors and the Nation. Developing the talents of our most committed citizens pays lifelong dividends. Our investment in the G.I. Bill not only honors our servicemembers but also enriches our Nation. Similarly, the education awards for those who have served through our national service programs have economic impacts beyond the individuals who earn them. That is the new deal that the ACTION for National Service Act offers. All AmeriCorps members take a pledge to get things done for Americans, to make communities safer, smarter, and healthier, and to bring us together. It is a pledge we all should commit ourselves to. I would like to thank the cosponsors of the ACTION for National Service Act and the over 40 organizations, including Voices for National Service, America's Service Commissions, States for Service Coalition, the Corps Network, National AmeriCorps Seniors Association, Service Year Alliance, City Year, and Campus Compact, that have endorsed this legislation. We urge our colleagues to join us in working for its passage so we can ensure that all who aspire to serve have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, service is a core American value. We take inspiration from those who have answered the call to serve, whether in defense of our Nation abroad or in strengthening our communities at home. Finding common cause through service is how we can overcome the major social, economic, and environmental challenges of our time. That is why I am proud to join Congressman John Larson of Connecticut and Senators Coons, Duckworth, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Baldwin, and Kim in introducing the America's Call to Improving Opportunities Now, ACTION, for National Service Act. Our legislation calls for a historic expansion of the number of service opportunities available to Americans and an increased investment in those who serve. The ACTION for National Service Act will honor our national value of service, while addressing the barriers that limit citizens' opportunities to serve. Our legislation will set us on a path to 1 million national service positions within 10 years. It will increase the education award so that an individual completing 2 full years of service will earn the equivalent of 4 years of the average instate tuition at a public college or university. The ACTION for National Service Act will also ease other financial barriers to service by increasing the living allowance and eliminating the tax liability for the education awards and living stipends. The bill calls for a robust outreach effort to ensure that all young people will be made aware of the many opportunities to serve their country and their communities. Finally, the ACTION for National Service Act calls for elevating the Corporation for National and Community Service to a Cabinet-level Agency and establishes a national service foundation to leverage private sector resources to support national service activities. Mr. President, this is the 250th anniversary of our Nation's founding. As we reflect on the values and the actions that have helped America prosper, we should recognize the essential role that service has played and restore it as a fundamental national value. We must make the commitment to invest in the education and professional development of those who are willing to dedicate their time and energy in service to their neighbors and the Nation. Developing the talents of our most committed citizens pays lifelong dividends. Our investment in the G.I. Bill not only honors our servicemembers but also enriches our Nation. Similarly, the education awards for those who have served through our national service programs have economic impacts beyond the individuals who earn them. That is the new deal that the ACTION for National Service Act offers. All AmeriCorps members take a pledge to get things done for Americans, to make communities safer, smarter, and healthier, and to bring us together. It is a pledge we all should commit ourselves to. I would like to thank the cosponsors of the ACTION for National Service Act and the over 40 organizations, including Voices for National Service, America's Service Commissions, States for Service Coalition, the Corps Network, National AmeriCorps Seniors Association, Service Year Alliance, City Year, and Campus Compact, that have endorsed this legislation. We urge our colleagues to join us in working for its passage so we can ensure that all who aspire to serve have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, 23 years ago this month, President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. The speed, power, and sophistication of the American military campaign was astounding. Within 3 short weeks, the United States had crushed the Iraqi army and collapsed Saddam Hussein's entire government. Our military victory was swift and total, as expected. A few months before the invasion, I delivered a speech here on the Senate floor. I spoke about the evil of Saddam's regime, the dangerous threat the Iraqi military posed, and the importance of confronting Iraq through all practical means, but I also cautioned against the pitfalls of the Bush administration's strategy, which I considered to be terribly misguided. As I observed at the time: Our judgment cannot rest simply on [Saddam's] unalloyed evil. We must consider our actions more broadly. Will we enhance the stability and security of the region? Will we strengthen our security not just for the moment, but for the future as well? What kind of precedent will we establish? . . . We will decisively defeat Iraqi military forces in any conflict. Yes. The skill and courage of our forces, aided by superb technology, will overwhelm Iraqi resistance. The military outcome is certain, but the cost and the consequences are uncertain and could be quite grave. I take no satisfaction in that warning. I wish Iraq had been the brief, decisive victory the Bush administration promised it would be. The reality turned out to be two decades of destruction, death, and instability that has cost our Nation dearly. I am standing here today because the Trump administration's war against Iran raises the same concerns and more. The parallels between March 2003 and March 2026 are striking and cannot be wished away no matter how loudly the Trump administration shouts down those of us who have noted as much. In both cases, the United States launched a massive air campaign with thousands of strikes on air defenses, command centers, leadership targets, and weapons infrastructure. In both cases, the early military results were dramatic and impressive. And in both cases, the administration stood before the cameras and promised the American people that the hard part was done. Indeed, in 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed: It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt 6 months. Similarly, just a few days ago, Secretary Hegseth said: You can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be eight, it could be three. There are many other parallels to these two conflicts, but in some cases, the differences between 2003 and 2026 are more alarming as this war begins. In 2002, President Bush made a case for war. I disagreed with that case profoundly. In fact, I voted against the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq--1 of only 23 Senators to do so. But we had a vote. The Bush administration came to Congress, presented intelligence--however flawed--testified before committees, and sought the buy-in of the American people. President Bush went through the steps that any responsible Commander in Chief must, and this body deliberated and decided. We had the information needed to cast a vote; every Senator did. Importantly, I would note that even with all that deliberation in 2002, President Bush still failed catastrophically. He tied our military up in a disaster that took decades and hundreds of thousands of lives to partially unravel. Today, President Trump has bypassed or ignored this most necessary process in a democracy. The American people woke up last Saturday to find themselves at war with Iran. There was no vote, there was no authorization for the use of military force, nor intelligence shared with Congress--who are the representatives of 350 million Americans-- and no coalition of allies and partners were assembled or brought into the plan. In fact, several of our closest friends in the Middle East were, by all accounts, as surprised as anyone by the joint American and Israeli attack. Many of them--Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Jordan, Iraq, and others--are suffering the consequences of Iranian retaliation without having been involved in this decision that triggered it. And the administration has left thousands of Americans stranded in harm's way without, for many, a realistic means of getting home. As impressively as our military has performed, I must ask my Republican colleagues this: Do you believe that the Trump White House has devoted even a fraction of the strategic effort that the Bush administration put into Iraq? Because the Bush administration at least thought about it. They were wrong, but they undertook preparations for more than a year. What is the evidence of that same seriousness with today's military operation? Now, we must understand Iran is not Iraq. I want to be clear about this because it matters enormously to what comes next. Saddam Hussein's government, for all its brutality, was a hollowed- out institution propped up by fear and oil. The Iranian regime is something altogether different. It is deeply entrenched by half a century in power. It is woven into the economic, military, and religious fabric of a nation of 93 million people. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--the IRGC--is not a conventional military that will dissolve because the Ayatollah has been killed--just the opposite. It has shown its willingness to absorb pain and endure. It is an ideological institution with deep roots, considerable resources, and a demonstrated willingness to direct violence across the entire region. Iran's missile and drone arsenal dwarfs anything Iraq possessed, and it has a vast network of proxy forces, from Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, to the Houthis in Yemen. These forces, although diminished and disrupted from the past several years of fighting, represent a military capacity that has shown it can cause real pain for our troops, our allies and partners, and the global economy. We have already experienced deadly Iranian retaliatory strikes against American bases across the Middle East. Just because their missile strikes have slowed down, we should not be given the false confidence that they are finished. This regime is cunning. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil supply flows, is now essentially closed. Energy prices are spiking, and the stock markets are falling as a result. Further, cyber attacks on our critical infrastructure here--our financial systems, our energy grids, our military networks--are very possible. We cannot overlook another fact. The administration has refused to rule out deploying American forces into Iran. Let me say that again. The administration will not rule out putting American boots on Iranian soil. That kind of invasion would not just be a difficult campaign; it would, in my view, be catastrophic. Indeed, it would make the Iraq operation look rather straightforward by comparison. Further, there has been speculation about not a major land operation but the potential for a Special Forces operation to seize Iran's enriched uranium. This would be exceedingly difficult and would require deploying hundreds of our forces deep into Iran, at great peril. Even if successful, such an operation would not change the Government of Iran and, although dealing perhaps a serious setback, would likely harden the fanatical approach of the IRGC and increase the degree and duration of retaliation. Like in 2003, I am disappointed by the lack of scrutiny from my Republican colleagues. These are basic questions that remain unanswered. What are President Trump's objectives? I have listened carefully to this administration, and their rationale has shifted constantly--from protecting Iranian protesters, to eliminating Iran's nuclear program, to destroying its ballistic missile arsenal, to what now appears to be regime change. President Trump declared last week that he wants no less than unconditional surrender and he should have a role in choosing Iran's next leader. These comments reveal a stunning failure to understand Iran and its history. I worry that the President and his advisers have convinced themselves they are immune from the lessons of history. Destroying Iran without a credible postwar plan is not likely to create a stable, democratic state. Instead, it could create a chaotic power vacuum that drags in the rest of the Middle East. Ironically, it could further entrench the most radical elements of Iran's leadership to be even more organized and ruthless and could send the message across the globe that acquiring a nuclear weapon is the ultimate path to avoiding President Trump's unpredictable wrath. Beyond the lack of strategic planning, I am also troubled by the military readiness and financial cost of this conflict. The Senate Armed Services Committee has sent formal inquiries to the Department of Defense requesting projected costs, which by some estimates could run as high as $1 billion a day. Reports indicate that the administration is already preparing a supplemental appropriation request to Congress for emergency funding--potentially more than $50 billion--to backfill the massive munitions loss and battle damage incurred in the opening days of this war. But let me be very clear: I will not support a blank check for this war of choice. In the same 2003 speech I discussed earlier, I asked several questions that I believe history has since validated. We are debating Iraq today, but will we apply this preemptive doctrine to Iran or North Korea tomorrow? How do we prevent others from adopting this same strategy if we have enshrined it as the centerpiece of our policy? For example, how do we counsel the Indians to refrain from preemptively attacking Pakistan or vice versa? From New Delhi or Islamabad, the threat looks ``sufficient'' and striking first is enticing. That question is no longer hypothetical. Today, China is watching our war against Iran with intense interest as it considers its posture toward Taiwan. Russia is watching as it calculates what remains possible beyond Ukraine. They are also very much enthused by the extraordinary increase in the price of oil and restrictions taken off by the United States on their sales in certain countries. What was a floundering economy is now getting strengthened by our actions in the Middle East, which will have, I think, severe consequences in Ukraine and elsewhere. When the United States launches preemptive wars--whether in Iran, in Venezuela, or perhaps Cuba--without bothering to make any public case or good-faith legal argument, we diminish American power; we give permission for other nations to throw their own military weight against their neighbors; we hand every ambitious autocrat in the world the same justification we have just used ourselves. The precedent we set today will outlast this Presidency by decades. Make no mistake, the Iranian regime is a brutal, corrupt institution that has denied its people basic rights for nearly 50 years. I do not mourn Ayatollah Khamenei. I do not minimize the genuine threat that Iran's nuclear program and missile arsenal represent to the United States and our allies. The day the Iranian regime is replaced by a government that genuinely serves the Iranian people will be a good day for the world. But, recall, President Trump ripped up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action--a real diplomatic framework that was constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions. He refused to negotiate a replacement. Just 2 weeks ago, the Omani Foreign Minister, who served as a key intermediary between Washington and Tehran, reported that there had been significant progress in the ongoing negotiations just before these strikes began. The President broke the diplomatic solution and is now trying to bomb his way out of a crisis of his own making. He had other, better, choices. He chose war, and now, he owes the American people a full accounting. I would ask my colleagues who support this war the same questions I have been directing to the administration. What is the theory of victory? What does success look like, and how will we know when we have achieved it? What legal authority does the administration believe it is operating under given that this Congress has not authorized this conflict? What is the day-after plan for Iran--for its government, its 93 million citizens, its borders, its proxies? What is the plan if this regime does not fall, if the Revolutionary Guard fights on for years? Will the administration commit that American ground forces will not be sent into Iran? To my Republican colleagues, I urge you to ask these same questions and to demand answers from the administration. History is watching, and in 20 years, you, too, may wish you held this President to greater account. So far, seven American servicemembers have been killed. Hundreds more have been wounded. To their families, this Chamber--on both sides--owes our deepest condolences and our solemn commitment to ensure their sacrifice is honored. America's sons and daughters have gone into harm's way carrying the full weight of this Nation's trust. They deserve leadership and a strategy worthy of their service. I had the great privilege to serve in the U.S. Army. I believe in American power, and I believe we should be willing to use it. I believe in American leadership on the global stage. But power without wisdom or restraint is just recklessness, and leadership without accountability or conscience is just theater, a performance to serve the President's ego, not America. Mr. President, I will close by recalling the same words with which I concluded my remarks on this floor 23 years ago: Great events will turn on our deliberations. But, at this moment, my thoughts are not on historic forces. Rather, I think about the young Americans who will carry out our policies. They are prepared to sacrifice everything. We owe them more than we can ever repay. One thing that we certainly owe them is our best judgment. I have tried to give them mine. Mr. President, those words are no less true today. The young men and women the President has sent into this conflict are prepared to give everything. We owe them our unsparing questions. The President owes them a plan. We owe them the honest and rigorous judgment of the Commander in Chief and the leaders he has entrusted with the gravest decisions a democracy can make. I have tried, again, to give my best judgment, and I urge my colleagues to give theirs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Foreign Stablecoin Transparency Act. This important legislation would close a loophole in the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins, or GENIUS, Act by extending a provision that requires large U.S. stablecoin issuers to undergo a full financial statement audit to also cover large foreign stablecoin issuers that offer and sell their products to U.S. investors. Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to a real- world asset, which under the GENIUS Act is the U.S. dollar. The basic promise that stablecoin issuers make to their holders is that a stablecoin will always be redeemable for a dollar on demand. You give a stablecoin company a dollar, the company gives you back an IOU that is recorded on a blockchain. The stablecoin company takes your dollar and invests it in various safe assets that are purportedly able to be liquidated at any time to meet redemption requests. All kinds of companies that handle the American peoples' money must undergo financial statement audits. U.S.-based dollar stablecoin issuers with $50 billion of stablecoins in circulation must get an audit. Banks of all sizes must get audits, even the smallest community banks. Many States require licensed money transmitters to submit audited financial statements to provide transparency and verify their financial health. Even unregistered private funds that are sponsored by U.S. investment advisers must get audits. And of course, all public companies must get audits. So it strikes me as entirely sensible to extend this very same requirement to foreign issuers of dollar-backed stablecoins, which handle Americans' money--just like so many other institutions that are subject to audit requirements. Unless stablecoin issuers are audited, there is no independent verification that the company has enough assets to cover all stablecoins in circulation. Instead, holders must take the word of the issuer. If the issuer does not have sufficient reserves or is found to be cooking the books, then a stablecoin company may experience a ``run'' on its assets and holders will not be able to get their money back despite being sold something that they are told is safe and redeemable on demand. That is why we need audits of all companies that issue dollar-backed stablecoins to Americans. A major flaw of the GENIUS Act is that stablecoins issued by companies with headquarters outside the United States are not required to undergo audits. Unless this flaw is addressed, the world's largest dollar-backed stablecoin--Tether, which is based in El Salvador--can be freely offered, sold, and used by Americans without being compelled to provide a full accounting of the reserves backing its coin. Tether purportedly has $187 billion in assets and is an essential piece of the crypto financial system plumbing. All manner of crypto-assets are bought and sold not with fiat currency, but with dollar-backed stablecoins like Tether. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee in 2025 Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testified, ``I believe U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins should be fully audited.'' Earlier this week before the Senate Appropriations Committee, I asked him whether this specific statement included Tether, and he said ``I absolutely agree with you, Tether should be audited. Although Secretary Lutnick has no formal role in overseeing cryptocurrency, he has significant experience in this area. His former investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald has very deep ties to Tether. Cantor owns a 5 percent stake in the company, manages the reserves backing its stablecoin, and has cosponsored various crypto investment funds with Tether. My legislation would require foreign stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar like Tether to undergo an audit, no matter where the company is located. And a full audit is essential. In 2021, Tether was fined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for lying about its reserves. The CFTC found that ``Tether misrepresented to customers and the market that Tether maintained sufficient fiat reserves to back every USDt in circulation `one-to-one' . . . and that Tether would undergo routine, professional audits to demonstrate that it maintained `100% reserves at all times.' In fact . . . Tether failed to maintain fiat currency reserves . . . to back every USDt in circulation.'' Despite Tether executives promising for years that they want to get an audit, we have yet to see them do so. Instead, Tether has published quarterly ``attestations'' by the Italian arm of a mid-tier accounting firm that simply verify information that Tether provides to that firm using procedures that are mutually agreed. That is very different than true independent third- party verification based upon standardized procedures with criminal and civil penalties if financial statements contain false information. If foreign stablecoin issuers want the privilege of creating and handling the American people's money, then I agree with Secretary Lutnick that it is entirely sensible for them to open up their books for the American people to see, just as we expect of large U.S. stablecoin companies, banks, and other payments companies. If the goal of the GENIUS bill is to create incentives for stablecoin issuers to come onshore and operate fully within the U.S. regulatory perimeter, then we must close this alarming gap that incentivizes dollar creation by foreign companies. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Foreign Stablecoin Transparency Act. This important legislation would close a loophole in the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins, or GENIUS, Act by extending a provision that requires large U.S. stablecoin issuers to undergo a full financial statement audit to also cover large foreign stablecoin issuers that offer and sell their products to U.S. investors. Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to a real- world asset, which under the GENIUS Act is the U.S. dollar. The basic promise that stablecoin issuers make to their holders is that a stablecoin will always be redeemable for a dollar on demand. You give a stablecoin company a dollar, the company gives you back an IOU that is recorded on a blockchain. The stablecoin company takes your dollar and invests it in various safe assets that are purportedly able to be liquidated at any time to meet redemption requests. All kinds of companies that handle the American peoples' money must undergo financial statement audits. U.S.-based dollar stablecoin issuers with $50 billion of stablecoins in circulation must get an audit. Banks of all sizes must get audits, even the smallest community banks. Many States require licensed money transmitters to submit audited financial statements to provide transparency and verify their financial health. Even unregistered private funds that are sponsored by U.S. investment advisers must get audits. And of course, all public companies must get audits. So it strikes me as entirely sensible to extend this very same requirement to foreign issuers of dollar-backed stablecoins, which handle Americans' money--just like so many other institutions that are subject to audit requirements. Unless stablecoin issuers are audited, there is no independent verification that the company has enough assets to cover all stablecoins in circulation. Instead, holders must take the word of the issuer. If the issuer does not have sufficient reserves or is found to be cooking the books, then a stablecoin company may experience a ``run'' on its assets and holders will not be able to get their money back despite being sold something that they are told is safe and redeemable on demand. That is why we need audits of all companies that issue dollar-backed stablecoins to Americans. A major flaw of the GENIUS Act is that stablecoins issued by companies with headquarters outside the United States are not required to undergo audits. Unless this flaw is addressed, the world's largest dollar-backed stablecoin--Tether, which is based in El Salvador--can be freely offered, sold, and used by Americans without being compelled to provide a full accounting of the reserves backing its coin. Tether purportedly has $187 billion in assets and is an essential piece of the crypto financial system plumbing. All manner of crypto-assets are bought and sold not with fiat currency, but with dollar-backed stablecoins like Tether. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee in 2025 Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testified, ``I believe U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins should be fully audited.'' Earlier this week before the Senate Appropriations Committee, I asked him whether this specific statement included Tether, and he said ``I absolutely agree with you, Tether should be audited. Although Secretary Lutnick has no formal role in overseeing cryptocurrency, he has significant experience in this area. His former investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald has very deep ties to Tether. Cantor owns a 5 percent stake in the company, manages the reserves backing its stablecoin, and has cosponsored various crypto investment funds with Tether. My legislation would require foreign stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar like Tether to undergo an audit, no matter where the company is located. And a full audit is essential. In 2021, Tether was fined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for lying about its reserves. The CFTC found that ``Tether misrepresented to customers and the market that Tether maintained sufficient fiat reserves to back every USDt in circulation `one-to-one' . . . and that Tether would undergo routine, professional audits to demonstrate that it maintained `100% reserves at all times.' In fact . . . Tether failed to maintain fiat currency reserves . . . to back every USDt in circulation.'' Despite Tether executives promising for years that they want to get an audit, we have yet to see them do so. Instead, Tether has published quarterly ``attestations'' by the Italian arm of a mid-tier accounting firm that simply verify information that Tether provides to that firm using procedures that are mutually agreed. That is very different than true independent third- party verification based upon standardized procedures with criminal and civil penalties if financial statements contain false information. If foreign stablecoin issuers want the privilege of creating and handling the American people's money, then I agree with Secretary Lutnick that it is entirely sensible for them to open up their books for the American people to see, just as we expect of large U.S. stablecoin companies, banks, and other payments companies. If the goal of the GENIUS bill is to create incentives for stablecoin issuers to come onshore and operate fully within the U.S. regulatory perimeter, then we must close this alarming gap that incentivizes dollar creation by foreign companies. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Vice Admiral Nancy Hann upon her retirement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration after nearly 30 years of distinguished service to our Nation. Vice Admiral Hann's career reflects the highest traditions of uniformed service: professional excellence, operational expertise, and an unwavering commitment to the workforce and mission. She began her career as a fisheries observer, and after commissioning in the NOAA Corps, she built her leadership through hands-on operational service as a deck officer at sea, a pilot in NOAA aircraft, and a flight meteorologist supporting missions critical to environmental intelligence and public safety. As a NOAA pilot and flight meteorologist, Vice Admiral Hann flew demanding missions in support of hurricane forecasting, marine mammal research, and environmental response, working alongside scientists and crews in some of the most challenging operational environments NOAA faces. Those experiences shaped a leader grounded in real-world operations and the people who carry them out. She went on to serve in a wide range of senior operational and management roles, including commanding officer of the NOAA Aircraft Operations Center, senior leadership positions within the NOAA Corps and the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, and NOAA liaison to U.S. Pacific Command. Most recently, she served as Director of the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps and Deputy Under Secretary for Operations, overseeing NOAA's ships, aircraft, uncrewed systems, diving programs, and small boats worldwide. Through these senior roles, Vice Admiral Hann's leadership also had a lasting impact in Rhode Island. She was instrumental in supporting NOAA's Atlantic Fleet and advancing the relocation of the Marine Operations Center--Atlantic to Newport, reinforcing the Ocean State's role as a hub for maritime operations and strengthening NOAA's operational readiness. A true trailblazer, Vice Admiral Hann became the first woman to attain the rank of vice admiral--one of only three officers promoted to that rank in NOAA Corps history--and served as the first and only commissioned officer to act as NOAA Administrator. She did not simply break barriers; she built pathways, expanding opportunity and strengthening the professional culture for those who followed. Throughout her career, Vice Admiral Hann championed inclusion, mentorship, and workforce development. She has emphasized that leadership is about removing obstacles so others can succeed, and she consistently worked to create environments where people could thrive and do their best work. Her efforts helped prepare the next generation of NOAA scientists, pilots, engineers, and mariners to carry forward the Agency's vital mission. As Vice Admiral Hann concludes her career, the Nation owes her a deep debt of gratitude. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Vice Admiral Nancy Hann for her extraordinary service and in congratulating her on a well-earned retirement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Predatory Lending Elimination Act along with many of my colleagues. This important legislation would extend the bipartisan Military Lending Act, MLA, protections for Active-Duty servicemembers and their families to all Americans by imposing a nationwide 36 percent cap on the annual percentage rate, APR, for most extensions of consumer credit. The MLA was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 2006 to rein in payday and other unscrupulous lenders that targeted American troops with abusive and predatory loans. Unfortunately, the MLA does not protect veterans or Gold Star families from these exploitative practices. Servicemembers and their families should not lose important consumer protections simply because they retire, separate from honorable service, or lose their loved ones. Frankly, all Americans deserve to be shielded from these kinds of predatory loans, and that is just what our bill does. Hundreds of millions of American consumers could benefit from a 36- percent APR cap. In States that do not have such a cap, predatory lenders can offer loans with triple-digit APRs that trap individuals in cycles of debt. For instance, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 80 percent of payday loans are rolled over or renewed within 2 weeks. This practice can subject borrowers not just to high nominal interest rates but also to high fees that can quickly surpass the amount of money originally borrowed. These are hallmarks of predatory lending and poor underwriting. According to a coalition of community organizations, payday lenders are known to target the most vulnerable, including seniors, veterans, and low-income borrowers. Many in these communities are already struggling to make ends meet as they navigate the President's tariffs and stubbornly high prices, and are continuing to pay exorbitant APRs may cause them to fall deeper into economic insecurity. This is why it is important to extend strong protections against unscrupulous lenders to all Americans. The MLA's successful track record demonstrates that providing reasonable, responsible limits on interest rates does not cut off consumers' access to credit. According to a May 2021 report from the Department of Defense, ``credit cards, auto loans, and personal loans are widely available at risk-based rates under the 36 percent [military] APR'' and ``[s]ervice members continue to have ample access to necessary credit.'' Moreover, this legislation would follow the trend in many States towards greater protections against predatory loans. Nineteen States and the District of Columbia have enacted 36 percent APR caps or banned payday loans. Lenders in these States have incentives to offer more affordable loans that borrowers have an ability to repay. The same incentives should apply across the Nation. I thank the 176 consumer advocacy groups, faith-based organizations, veteran service organizations, and trade associations that support this bill, including the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, the Center for Responsible Lending, Americans for Financial Reform, Amalgamated Bank, the Military Officers Association of America, and the National Military Family Association. I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Predatory Lending Elimination Act along with many of my colleagues. This important legislation would extend the bipartisan Military Lending Act, MLA, protections for Active-Duty servicemembers and their families to all Americans by imposing a nationwide 36 percent cap on the annual percentage rate, APR, for most extensions of consumer credit. The MLA was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 2006 to rein in payday and other unscrupulous lenders that targeted American troops with abusive and predatory loans. Unfortunately, the MLA does not protect veterans or Gold Star families from these exploitative practices. Servicemembers and their families should not lose important consumer protections simply because they retire, separate from honorable service, or lose their loved ones. Frankly, all Americans deserve to be shielded from these kinds of predatory loans, and that is just what our bill does. Hundreds of millions of American consumers could benefit from a 36- percent APR cap. In States that do not have such a cap, predatory lenders can offer loans with triple-digit APRs that trap individuals in cycles of debt. For instance, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 80 percent of payday loans are rolled over or renewed within 2 weeks. This practice can subject borrowers not just to high nominal interest rates but also to high fees that can quickly surpass the amount of money originally borrowed. These are hallmarks of predatory lending and poor underwriting. According to a coalition of community organizations, payday lenders are known to target the most vulnerable, including seniors, veterans, and low-income borrowers. Many in these communities are already struggling to make ends meet as they navigate the President's tariffs and stubbornly high prices, and are continuing to pay exorbitant APRs may cause them to fall deeper into economic insecurity. This is why it is important to extend strong protections against unscrupulous lenders to all Americans. The MLA's successful track record demonstrates that providing reasonable, responsible limits on interest rates does not cut off consumers' access to credit. According to a May 2021 report from the Department of Defense, ``credit cards, auto loans, and personal loans are widely available at risk-based rates under the 36 percent [military] APR'' and ``[s]ervice members continue to have ample access to necessary credit.'' Moreover, this legislation would follow the trend in many States towards greater protections against predatory loans. Nineteen States and the District of Columbia have enacted 36 percent APR caps or banned payday loans. Lenders in these States have incentives to offer more affordable loans that borrowers have an ability to repay. The same incentives should apply across the Nation. I thank the 176 consumer advocacy groups, faith-based organizations, veteran service organizations, and trade associations that support this bill, including the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, the Center for Responsible Lending, Americans for Financial Reform, Amalgamated Bank, the Military Officers Association of America, and the National Military Family Association. I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, among the many challenges to improving educational outcomes for students and recruiting and retaining educators for our public schools is the condition of school facilities. A 2020 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report found that over half, 54 percent, of school districts nationwide need to update or replace multiple systems in their schools, such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, HVAC, or plumbing. Now is the time to invest in school infrastructure. Doing so will improve the resilience of our schools, bolster student learning, reduce carbon emissions, and create jobs. That is why I am proud to partner with Representative Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in introducing the Rebuild America's Schools Act. I would like to thank my Senate colleagues who are joining in this effort, including Senators Van Hollen, Kaine, Booker, Alsobrooks, Cortez Masto, Whitehouse, Merkley, Hirono, Smith, Shaheen, Durbin, Blumenthal, Heinrich, Padilla, Whitehouse, Markey, and Lujan. Public schools play a vital role in every community across the Nation. They play a central role in our democracy--educating the next generation, serving as polling places for our elections, hosting community meetings and events, and so much more. When there is a natural disaster or an emergency, people often gather at their public schools for shelter, information, and resources. Public schools are public infrastructure, and we should invest in them just as we invest in roads and bridges. Safe, healthy, modern, well-equipped schools are also essential for advancing student achievement and ensuring that the next generation is prepared to meet the economic, social, environmental, and global challenges our Nation faces. Yet, too many of the approximately 56 million children and adults who learn and work in our public schools spend their days in facilities that fail to make the grade. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave school infrastructure a D-plus on its latest report card. Nearly 40 percent of public school were built before 1970 and contain hazardous construction materials such as asbestos, lead, and PCBs. An analysis from the Center for Climate Integrity found that more than 13,700 public schools that did not need air-conditioning in 1970 need it today. These essential retrofits are estimated to cost $40 billion. The 2025 State of Our Schools Report, a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., the National Council on School Facilities, and the International Well Building Institute, identified a nearly $90 billion annual shortfall in school facilities investment. States and local communities cannot bridge this gap alone, especially when many struggle to simply keep teachers and staff on the payroll. And we know the budget shortfalls hit low-income and minority communities the hardest. The GAO noted that capital construction expenditures, on average, were about $300 less per student in high-poverty districts compared to low-poverty districts. With inflation, interest rates, and extreme weather events on the rise, the gap between what is needed to maintain safe and modern schools and what communities can afford will only grow. Addressing this need is the right thing to do for our students, and it will also create good jobs and grow the economy. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, every $1 billion spent on construction generates 17,785 jobs. The Rebuild America's Schools Act will create a Federal-State partnership for school infrastructure. It will provide, over 10 years, a total of $130 billion in direct grants and school construction bonds to help fill the annual gap in school facility capital needs, while creating nearly 2 million jobs. Specifically, the Rebuild America's Schools Act will provide $100 billion in formula funds to States for local competitive grants for school repair, renovation, and construction. States will focus assistance on communities with the greatest financial need, encourage green construction practices, and expand access to high-speed broadband to ensure that all students have access to digital learning. Our legislation would also provide $30 billion for qualified school infrastructure bonds, QSIBs, $10 billion each year from fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year 2029 and restore the qualified zone academy bonds, QZABs, that were eliminated in the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The legislation also eases the matching requirements and expands the authority and eligible purposes of QZABs to allow local education agencies to construct, rehabilitate, retrofit, or repair school facilities. The Rebuild America's Schools Act also supports American workers by ensuring that projects use American-made iron, steel, and manufactured products and meet labor standards. I would like to thank the broad coalition of educators, community organizations, unions, civil rights advocates, and employers that have provided feedback and support for this legislation, including the 21st Century Schools Fund, AFT: Education, Healthcare, Public Services, American Library Association, BlueGreen Alliance, Build America's School Infrastructure Coalition, BASIC, Children and Nature Network, American Institute of Architects, AIA, American School Superintendents Association, AASA, Council of Great City Schools, Craven County Schools, Green Schoolyards America, Greenbank Associates, Healthy Schools Campaign, Heart of America, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, SMART, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Kentucky School Plant Management Association, National Council on School Facilities, National Education Association, National School Plan Management Association, North American Association for Environmental Education, Rentokil Terminix, Safe Traces, the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, UndauntedK12, and U.S. Green Building Council. We have no time to waste in fixing our deteriorating school infrastructure. I urge our colleagues to support the Rebuild America's Schools Act and press for its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, among the many challenges to improving educational outcomes for students and recruiting and retaining educators for our public schools is the condition of school facilities. A 2020 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report found that over half, 54 percent, of school districts nationwide need to update or replace multiple systems in their schools, such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, HVAC, or plumbing. Now is the time to invest in school infrastructure. Doing so will improve the resilience of our schools, bolster student learning, reduce carbon emissions, and create jobs. That is why I am proud to partner with Representative Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in introducing the Rebuild America's Schools Act. I would like to thank my Senate colleagues who are joining in this effort, including Senators Van Hollen, Kaine, Booker, Alsobrooks, Cortez Masto, Whitehouse, Merkley, Hirono, Smith, Shaheen, Durbin, Blumenthal, Heinrich, Padilla, Whitehouse, Markey, and Lujan. Public schools play a vital role in every community across the Nation. They play a central role in our democracy--educating the next generation, serving as polling places for our elections, hosting community meetings and events, and so much more. When there is a natural disaster or an emergency, people often gather at their public schools for shelter, information, and resources. Public schools are public infrastructure, and we should invest in them just as we invest in roads and bridges. Safe, healthy, modern, well-equipped schools are also essential for advancing student achievement and ensuring that the next generation is prepared to meet the economic, social, environmental, and global challenges our Nation faces. Yet, too many of the approximately 56 million children and adults who learn and work in our public schools spend their days in facilities that fail to make the grade. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave school infrastructure a D-plus on its latest report card. Nearly 40 percent of public school were built before 1970 and contain hazardous construction materials such as asbestos, lead, and PCBs. An analysis from the Center for Climate Integrity found that more than 13,700 public schools that did not need air-conditioning in 1970 need it today. These essential retrofits are estimated to cost $40 billion. The 2025 State of Our Schools Report, a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., the National Council on School Facilities, and the International Well Building Institute, identified a nearly $90 billion annual shortfall in school facilities investment. States and local communities cannot bridge this gap alone, especially when many struggle to simply keep teachers and staff on the payroll. And we know the budget shortfalls hit low-income and minority communities the hardest. The GAO noted that capital construction expenditures, on average, were about $300 less per student in high-poverty districts compared to low-poverty districts. With inflation, interest rates, and extreme weather events on the rise, the gap between what is needed to maintain safe and modern schools and what communities can afford will only grow. Addressing this need is the right thing to do for our students, and it will also create good jobs and grow the economy. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, every $1 billion spent on construction generates 17,785 jobs. The Rebuild America's Schools Act will create a Federal-State partnership for school infrastructure. It will provide, over 10 years, a total of $130 billion in direct grants and school construction bonds to help fill the annual gap in school facility capital needs, while creating nearly 2 million jobs. Specifically, the Rebuild America's Schools Act will provide $100 billion in formula funds to States for local competitive grants for school repair, renovation, and construction. States will focus assistance on communities with the greatest financial need, encourage green construction practices, and expand access to high-speed broadband to ensure that all students have access to digital learning. Our legislation would also provide $30 billion for qualified school infrastructure bonds, QSIBs, $10 billion each year from fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year 2029 and restore the qualified zone academy bonds, QZABs, that were eliminated in the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The legislation also eases the matching requirements and expands the authority and eligible purposes of QZABs to allow local education agencies to construct, rehabilitate, retrofit, or repair school facilities. The Rebuild America's Schools Act also supports American workers by ensuring that projects use American-made iron, steel, and manufactured products and meet labor standards. I would like to thank the broad coalition of educators, community organizations, unions, civil rights advocates, and employers that have provided feedback and support for this legislation, including the 21st Century Schools Fund, AFT: Education, Healthcare, Public Services, American Library Association, BlueGreen Alliance, Build America's School Infrastructure Coalition, BASIC, Children and Nature Network, American Institute of Architects, AIA, American School Superintendents Association, AASA, Council of Great City Schools, Craven County Schools, Green Schoolyards America, Greenbank Associates, Healthy Schools Campaign, Heart of America, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, SMART, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Kentucky School Plant Management Association, National Council on School Facilities, National Education Association, National School Plan Management Association, North American Association for Environmental Education, Rentokil Terminix, Safe Traces, the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, UndauntedK12, and U.S. Green Building Council. We have no time to waste in fixing our deteriorating school infrastructure. I urge our colleagues to support the Rebuild America's Schools Act and press for its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act with Senators Smith, Wyden, Merkley, and Schumer. This legislation would reform Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac note sale programs to protect homeowners from foreclosure and keep properties in the hands of families and local civic institutions. I want to thank the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, and the National Community Stabilization Trust for their support of this bill. For over a decade, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have sold nonperforming and reperforming loans to protect their balance sheets. These transactions, known as note sales, transfer ownership of hundreds or thousands of mortgages to bulk purchasers, which are predominately private equity firms and other institutional investors. While selling nonperforming and reperforming loans may marginally reduce financial risk for FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, these sales harm borrowers and shift home ownership from individuals to large investors. Loans insured by FHA or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have strong foreclosure protections for borrowers that ensure servicers offer specific loss mitigation options to eligible borrowers before beginning foreclosure proceedings. These protections often help borrowers avoid foreclosure and catch up on their payments, but borrowers lose many of these protections when a mortgage is included in a note sale. Unfortunately, the lack of robust, required protections after a note sale has very real consequences for homeowners. Over 90 percent of the homeowners who were subject to an FHA reverse mortgage note sale through 2024 ultimately lost their homes. Meanwhile, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2019 that nonperforming loans sold by FHA are more likely to face foreclosure than comparable loans that FHA keeps on its own balance sheet. Similarly, the majority of homeowners with nonperforming loans sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also lost their homes after servicers reached a final resolution. Making matters worse. note sale purchasers are predominately private equity arms and institutional investors, which often move foreclosed properties out of the owner-occupied market. Approximately 35 percent of properties foreclosed upon or voluntarily turned over to a lender after a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac nonperforming loan note sale are sold to an investor, held by the purchaser for rental, or sit on a lender's books. In other words, more than one-third of these homes may be taken out of the owner-occupied market, reducing home ownership opportunities for families and shifting property ownership to large corporations that often drive up rents. The data is similar for FHA notes sales. Of the homes in FHA pools that were foreclosed on or went through deed in lieu of foreclosure, 40 percent were ultimately bought by investors. The Preserving Homes and Communities Act tackles these problems. It would protect homeowners by requiring mortgage servicers to complete Agency-required loss mitigation actions before FHA, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac can sell a nonperforming mortgage and by improving loss mitigation protections for these mortgages after they are sold. It would also protect communities by giving local entities with public missions, including States, municipalities, and nonprofits, the first opportunity to purchase nonperforming and reperforming mortgages--ahead of private equity and institutional investors. Finally, it requires purchasers that foreclose on nonperforming note sale properties to prioritize owner-occupants and low- and moderate- income households when selling or renting these homes. In sum, our legislation seeks to help homeowners remain in their homes and prevent institutional investors from acquiring homes on the cheap from Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Even President Trump has acknowledged the negative impact institutional investors are having in the single-family housing market and has called for reforms. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will embrace this proposal and work with me to make it law.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act with Senators Smith, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Baldwin, Whitehouse, Kim, Gallego, Murphy, and Slotkin. Our bill would provide approximately $50 billion over a decade to help build and preserve 2.9 million units of affordable housing and is fully paid for through a new tax that disincentives institutional investors from purchasing large numbers of single-family homes. Driven by a shortage of as many as 6.8 million homes nationwide, home prices have surged 51 percent and rents 36 percent over the last 6 years, according to the National Association of Realtors and Zillow. During that same period, large investors exacerbated this shortage by purchasing hundreds of thousands of single-family homes across the United States, many of which they hold within portfolios as rentals, preventing more families from reaching home ownership. In the first 9 months of 2025, around 30 percent of single-family homes on the market were bought by investors, not hard-working households who cannot compete with private equity and other large investors that can make all-cash offers, waive contingencies, and provide additional concessions. Institutional investor activity within the single-family housing market began in the wake of the great recession and accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has compounded other housing market pressures that are driving up costs, including years of underbuilding and a shift among developers toward building larger, more expensive homes. As a result, average Americans are being crowded out of home ownership. Researchers at Harvard University report that home prices in 2024 were five times the median household income--significantly higher than the price-to-income ratio of three that traditionally signifies an affordably priced housing market. Surging home prices and rents particularly strain moderate- and low- income Americans. Homelessness has risen in line with housing prices and is up 36 percent since 2019. Unfortunately, existing Federal investments in low-income housing are insufficient to solve this affordability crisis. Indeed, in 2023, those same researchers at Harvard University found that the three largest Federal housing programs serve nearly 300,000 fewer households today than they did 20 years ago, while only approximately 25 percent of eligible households can get housing aid. The Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act would address the outsize role institutional investors have in the housing market while also addressing the need for more housing units. It would raise $51 billion over a decade by taxing investors that purchase large numbers of single-family homes, with revenue split between the Housing Trust Fund, HTF, and Capital Magnet Fund, CMF, to help build and rehab 285,000 rental units for extremely low-income Americans through HTF grants and help finance 2.7 million rental and home ownership units for low-income families via CMF, which leverages other public and private investments. In other words, our bill would help build and rehabilitate millions of homes for American families and boost households competing for single-family homes with deep-pocketed investors, all without raising the deficit. This is a commonsense, fair proposal that tackles perhaps our Nation's largest challenge. I am encouraged that President Trump has caught on to the fact that institutional investors are, in his words, ``crowding out families seeking to buy homes.'' He added in a recent Executive order ``that large institutional investors should not buy single-family homes that could otherwise be purchased by families.'' This is the very issue that the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act seeks to address, so I hope that we can build bipartisan support for its passage. I thank the bill's endorsers--the National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Housing Law Project, National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients, Americans for Financial Reform, and Consumer Action--and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act with Senators Smith, Wyden, Merkley, and Schumer. This legislation would reform Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac note sale programs to protect homeowners from foreclosure and keep properties in the hands of families and local civic institutions. I want to thank the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, and the National Community Stabilization Trust for their support of this bill. For over a decade, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have sold nonperforming and reperforming loans to protect their balance sheets. These transactions, known as note sales, transfer ownership of hundreds or thousands of mortgages to bulk purchasers, which are predominately private equity firms and other institutional investors. While selling nonperforming and reperforming loans may marginally reduce financial risk for FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, these sales harm borrowers and shift home ownership from individuals to large investors. Loans insured by FHA or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have strong foreclosure protections for borrowers that ensure servicers offer specific loss mitigation options to eligible borrowers before beginning foreclosure proceedings. These protections often help borrowers avoid foreclosure and catch up on their payments, but borrowers lose many of these protections when a mortgage is included in a note sale. Unfortunately, the lack of robust, required protections after a note sale has very real consequences for homeowners. Over 90 percent of the homeowners who were subject to an FHA reverse mortgage note sale through 2024 ultimately lost their homes. Meanwhile, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2019 that nonperforming loans sold by FHA are more likely to face foreclosure than comparable loans that FHA keeps on its own balance sheet. Similarly, the majority of homeowners with nonperforming loans sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also lost their homes after servicers reached a final resolution. Making matters worse. note sale purchasers are predominately private equity arms and institutional investors, which often move foreclosed properties out of the owner-occupied market. Approximately 35 percent of properties foreclosed upon or voluntarily turned over to a lender after a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac nonperforming loan note sale are sold to an investor, held by the purchaser for rental, or sit on a lender's books. In other words, more than one-third of these homes may be taken out of the owner-occupied market, reducing home ownership opportunities for families and shifting property ownership to large corporations that often drive up rents. The data is similar for FHA notes sales. Of the homes in FHA pools that were foreclosed on or went through deed in lieu of foreclosure, 40 percent were ultimately bought by investors. The Preserving Homes and Communities Act tackles these problems. It would protect homeowners by requiring mortgage servicers to complete Agency-required loss mitigation actions before FHA, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac can sell a nonperforming mortgage and by improving loss mitigation protections for these mortgages after they are sold. It would also protect communities by giving local entities with public missions, including States, municipalities, and nonprofits, the first opportunity to purchase nonperforming and reperforming mortgages--ahead of private equity and institutional investors. Finally, it requires purchasers that foreclose on nonperforming note sale properties to prioritize owner-occupants and low- and moderate- income households when selling or renting these homes. In sum, our legislation seeks to help homeowners remain in their homes and prevent institutional investors from acquiring homes on the cheap from Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Even President Trump has acknowledged the negative impact institutional investors are having in the single-family housing market and has called for reforms. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will embrace this proposal and work with me to make it law.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act with Senators Smith, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Baldwin, Whitehouse, Kim, Gallego, Murphy, and Slotkin. Our bill would provide approximately $50 billion over a decade to help build and preserve 2.9 million units of affordable housing and is fully paid for through a new tax that disincentives institutional investors from purchasing large numbers of single-family homes. Driven by a shortage of as many as 6.8 million homes nationwide, home prices have surged 51 percent and rents 36 percent over the last 6 years, according to the National Association of Realtors and Zillow. During that same period, large investors exacerbated this shortage by purchasing hundreds of thousands of single-family homes across the United States, many of which they hold within portfolios as rentals, preventing more families from reaching home ownership. In the first 9 months of 2025, around 30 percent of single-family homes on the market were bought by investors, not hard-working households who cannot compete with private equity and other large investors that can make all-cash offers, waive contingencies, and provide additional concessions. Institutional investor activity within the single-family housing market began in the wake of the great recession and accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has compounded other housing market pressures that are driving up costs, including years of underbuilding and a shift among developers toward building larger, more expensive homes. As a result, average Americans are being crowded out of home ownership. Researchers at Harvard University report that home prices in 2024 were five times the median household income--significantly higher than the price-to-income ratio of three that traditionally signifies an affordably priced housing market. Surging home prices and rents particularly strain moderate- and low- income Americans. Homelessness has risen in line with housing prices and is up 36 percent since 2019. Unfortunately, existing Federal investments in low-income housing are insufficient to solve this affordability crisis. Indeed, in 2023, those same researchers at Harvard University found that the three largest Federal housing programs serve nearly 300,000 fewer households today than they did 20 years ago, while only approximately 25 percent of eligible households can get housing aid. The Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act would address the outsize role institutional investors have in the housing market while also addressing the need for more housing units. It would raise $51 billion over a decade by taxing investors that purchase large numbers of single-family homes, with revenue split between the Housing Trust Fund, HTF, and Capital Magnet Fund, CMF, to help build and rehab 285,000 rental units for extremely low-income Americans through HTF grants and help finance 2.7 million rental and home ownership units for low-income families via CMF, which leverages other public and private investments. In other words, our bill would help build and rehabilitate millions of homes for American families and boost households competing for single-family homes with deep-pocketed investors, all without raising the deficit. This is a commonsense, fair proposal that tackles perhaps our Nation's largest challenge. I am encouraged that President Trump has caught on to the fact that institutional investors are, in his words, ``crowding out families seeking to buy homes.'' He added in a recent Executive order ``that large institutional investors should not buy single-family homes that could otherwise be purchased by families.'' This is the very issue that the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act seeks to address, so I hope that we can build bipartisan support for its passage. I thank the bill's endorsers--the National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Housing Law Project, National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients, Americans for Financial Reform, and Consumer Action--and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.