Jack Reed

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote on the nomination of Mr. Matthew Lohmeier to be Under Secretary of the Air Force. The Under Secretary is the second highest ranking official in the Air Force. This position is responsible for running the day-to-day operations of the Department and assisting the Secretary in leading the largest fleet of aircraft and space assets in the world. Most importantly, they are responsible for managing the hundreds of thousands of men and women who make up the Air Force and the Space Force. I have deep concerns about Mr. Lohmeier's fitness to represent these men and women. While I appreciate his past military service, his record of troubling conduct in uniform, extreme partisanship, and animosity toward military members with whom he disagrees politically is, in my view, completely disqualifying to be Under Secretary. His record of alarming behavior and statements is well-documented. In 2021, while serving as an Active-Duty Space Force officer in command of a large formation, he self-published a book titled: ``Irresistible Revolution: Marxism's Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military.'' The book argued that Marxism is rampant within the ranks and leading to the collapse of our military and our society. As he wrote: To be perfectly clear, the path we are on as a country leads us to fratricidal and genocidal warfare. While still on Active Duty and command, he went on a far-right podcast which was known for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories to advertise his book. All this was done without the knowledge or approval of the Department of Defense. Mr. Lohmeier was immediately relieved of command when his book and podcast were discovered. After leaving the Space Force, he has continued to write and speak about his extreme beliefs. Among his controversial statements, Mr. Lohmeier called the January 6 attack a government-led ``false flag and hoax at the Capitol.'' I would ask all of my colleagues who were there that day and who were in danger if it were a hoax and a false flag operation. I think, honestly, they would admit, no, it was an attack on the constitutional responsibilities of Congress to certify the election of the President of the United States. In that hoax, police officers were injured and killed, and many, many of us were terribly concerned about our safety and the safety of our staffs. So, if you believe it was a hoax, then you agree with Mr. Lohmeier. If you think it was and is an attack on our Constitution and on ourselves, this is not the gentleman to be the Under Secretary of the U.S. Air Force. He has appeared on dozens of podcasts and has made hundreds of social media posts about his distrust of American servicemembers, as he wrote in his book: In one respect, U.S. military servicemembers are no different than members of the People's Liberation Army. That is an interesting comparison--equating American soldiers with the members of the People's Liberation Army. He went on to say: Each is comprised of humans-- U.S. Army, PLA-- humans who share a common nature. Because we share the same nature, what Marxist ideology does to the Chinese military servicemember it will do to the American. Now, that is absolutely absurd. I don't think anyone in the United States or in the U.S. military will believe that our military will be transformed into a Marxist fighting organization equivalent to the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Yet that is what he is talking about, and I have read a great deal of his writing. I had the opportunity and the privilege not only to attend West Point but to teach at West Point. I would question his understanding of Marxism and his understanding, frankly, of the character of the American soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and guardian. It is profoundly not only deficient but insulting. Let me make one point clear: I am concerned that he has a deeply misguided and biased opinion of American military servicemembers and their leaders. If confirmed, he would lead an organization that, like this country, represents a spectrum of individuals--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--of all races and creeds and sexualities. Yet his language suggests that he regards many of these men and women as adversaries to be rooted out and purged from the force. I am very skeptical that servicemembers and civilians who do not share his political opinions can trust that they will not be targeted under Mr. Lohmeier's tenure. This could be a revenge tour in the Department of the Air Force--to get even with those he feels did not treat him fairly. That is not the type of individual you want in the position of Under Secretary of the Air Force. During his confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee, my colleagues and I pressed him to explain his extreme positions. In particular, I urged him to pledge to not seek retribution against any military members or civilians whom he has publicly criticized in the past, especially as many of them would serve under him if he is confirmed. He refused. He refused to make such a commitment. That failure significantly increases my concerns that he will be out to purge, to seek revenge; not to serve the interests of the U.S. Air Force and the United States of America but to work his own personal animosities out against those he distrusts. Ultimately, the Under Secretary of the Air Force is a position that demands wisdom, composure, and character. Our military personnel and, indeed, the American people deserve nothing less. I do not believe that Mr. Lohmeier is qualified for this position, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the nominee. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening Local Food Access Act with my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Justice. Our bipartisan bill would create a grant program for State and Tribal governments to procure local foods for distribution to nearby hunger relief and school meal programs. Local food systems that connect farmers and fishermen directly to the people they feed can be a real economic driver for communities. These local networks not only support the growth of local farmers and small businesses; they also ensure that food is readily available even when there is a breakdown in the broader food supply chain due natural disaster, transportation disruption, or disease. This bill would strengthen these local food systems by creating a market for producers to provide nutritious local food to children and those in need. Indeed, the Strengthening Local Food Access Act would support local food systems by helping States and Tribes purchase food from producers within their geographic bounds or within 400 miles of the final delivery destination, for distribution to nearby feeding programs and for use in school meals. This is a win-win-win. First, the bill supports local economic development by providing local producers with access to the hunger relief market. By establishing a new, reliable stream of orders for small local growers and harvesters, the bill will give these businesses the financial security to invest and further expand. Second, the bill strengthens our domestic agriculture supply chain by investing in local food distribution, in turn helping build local businesses that support durable and resilient local food systems. Third, the Strengthening Local Food Access Act would help combat food insecurity and improve food access by providing fresh, nutritious, local food to underserved communities and school feeding programs. I am pleased that the bill is supported by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture NASDA, National Farmers Union, and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. And in Rhode Island, the bill is supported by the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, Farm Fresh Rhode Island, and the Rhode Island Food Policy Council. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and in working to include it in the farm bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening Local Food Access Act with my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Justice. Our bipartisan bill would create a grant program for State and Tribal governments to procure local foods for distribution to nearby hunger relief and school meal programs. Local food systems that connect farmers and fishermen directly to the people they feed can be a real economic driver for communities. These local networks not only support the growth of local farmers and small businesses; they also ensure that food is readily available even when there is a breakdown in the broader food supply chain due natural disaster, transportation disruption, or disease. This bill would strengthen these local food systems by creating a market for producers to provide nutritious local food to children and those in need. Indeed, the Strengthening Local Food Access Act would support local food systems by helping States and Tribes purchase food from producers within their geographic bounds or within 400 miles of the final delivery destination, for distribution to nearby feeding programs and for use in school meals. This is a win-win-win. First, the bill supports local economic development by providing local producers with access to the hunger relief market. By establishing a new, reliable stream of orders for small local growers and harvesters, the bill will give these businesses the financial security to invest and further expand. Second, the bill strengthens our domestic agriculture supply chain by investing in local food distribution, in turn helping build local businesses that support durable and resilient local food systems. Third, the Strengthening Local Food Access Act would help combat food insecurity and improve food access by providing fresh, nutritious, local food to underserved communities and school feeding programs. I am pleased that the bill is supported by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture NASDA, National Farmers Union, and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. And in Rhode Island, the bill is supported by the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, Farm Fresh Rhode Island, and the Rhode Island Food Policy Council. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and in working to include it in the farm bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this partisan rescissions bill because it represents a complete surrender of Congress's power of the purse--one of the singular responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution. It will hurt America's standing in the world also. Finally and tragically, it will cost lives. We are considering this package at a time when the Trump administration has frozen congressionally enacted funds, illegally impounded funds, and threatened to cancel unspent funds at the end of the fiscal year. Now the administration is back, asking Congress to ratify even more cuts of programs that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis and, in many cases, that were signed into law by President Trump. I know that many of my Republican colleagues recognize the danger this proposal represents beyond its devastating cuts; yet few are willing to oppose it. The Trump administration claims it has found over $9 billion in wasteful spending at the State Department and at the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, and it points to some seemingly egregious examples of frivolous spending. I won't defend the outrageous waste of taxpayers' dollars. No one should or could. And if we were just voting on the examples some of my Republican colleagues like to highlight, I would suspect that kind of bill would get bipartisan support. But the longer the administration's examples of waste are scrutinized, the more it seems they may be exaggerated or even fabricated. Indeed, according to a New York Times report yesterday, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought's testimony that $9.3 million was spent ``to advise Russian doctors on how to perform abortions and gender analysis'' was patently false in almost every respect. Even if we accepted all of the administration's examples of waste as gospel, they don't total up to anything close to $9 billion. But these cuts, if we approve them, will come from somewhere. As Senator Murkowski pointed out last night, we have been given big, broad categories where funding might be cut, but the administration won't tell us which specific spending they plan to terminate. That was evident in last month's Appropriations Committee hearing with Director Vought, who simply evaded my colleague Senator Schatz' reasonable questions about what specific programs he would cut. The attitude he displayed was: Don't worry; you pass this bill, and we will find the waste and get back to you later. That is not the way to run a government or a company or anything else. And make no mistake, the likely decisions by OMB and the Trump administration are likely to be as bad as they are ill-informed. We have seen this repeated and repeated with DOGE, with Elon Musk making statements of the billions he saved, et cetera, and discovering that those billions evaporated quickly under analysis; discharging people--``unnecessary'' people--then, within days, calling them back. That was the case at the National Nuclear Security Administration. Again, there are not thoughtful analyses and practical programs--just slash and burn. This bill will eliminate close to $1.1 billion in funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. This would not simply affect funding for National Public Radio and national PBS; it would result in funding cuts for local stations like Rhode Island PBS and The Public's Radio, which would lose about 10 percent of its funding if this bill passes. The same story will play out in every State, with independent local news and civic discourse taking the hit just because of the President's command of the majority party. That is the flavor, really, of public radio because it is so decentralized. Stations in Kansas are covering local news, local personalities, local issues, and it is the same way in Rhode Island. That will be lost. This bill is also likely to eliminate funding for educational tools, and in the wake of the deadly flooding in Texas and elsewhere, do my colleagues really want to support a package that cuts funding for emergency alerts? The bill would also cut $7.9 billion from the kind of global assistance programs that are crucial to our national security and our efforts to compete with China economically and diplomatically. These programs are also the embodiment of American idealism and morality. As Catholic Relief Services wrote: If passed, these rescissions will directly impact the United States' ability to protect human life and promote human dignity; to advance U.S. and global peace and security; and to foster economic development that benefits U.S. taxpayers and people living in poverty around the world. That is from the Catholic Relief Services. The cuts on the table also include $500 million from global health programs, which could affect efforts that have successfully slowed the spread of infectious diseases, along with cuts to lifesaving humanitarian assistance. One proven program that could see drastic cuts under this rescissions package is the disbursement of Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food, or RUTF. RUTF is a specialty product to treat severe malnutrition in children and could be impacted by the proposed cuts to UNICEF that are included in this package. Unfortunately, we have already seen this administration's disregard for the lifesaving treatment provided by RUTF. Edesia Nutrition--a key manufacturer of RUTF--is based in Rhode Island, and it has been forced to curtail production and delay shipments of lifesaving therapeutic food, which has sat in warehouses, unable to get to children who need it, because of the Trump administration's needless slow-walking. If OMB really cared about waste, it wouldn't have this food aid and millions of tons of wheat and other crops sitting and rotting rather than distributing it to children who need it to survive. These are products made by American workers using domestically produced food to prevent millions of children from starving to death. And funds for RUTF have been included in appropriations bills on a bipartisan basis under both Republican and Democratic majorities and administrations for years. Also included in this bill is $1 billion in cuts to U.N. contributions and $4.9 billion in cuts to international economic and development assistance, and it threatens funding for global democracy. These international assistance programs are not just helping people in developing nations; they also provide an outsized value to the United States, building the soft power and credibility that make us a leader on the international stage and helps us confront our major adversaries. If we eliminate these programs, we will be ceding that authority to China and Russia, who would like nothing more than to displace the United States' global leadership position. Indeed, if my colleagues truly want to improve the U.N., they need to recognize that every time the United States steps back from an international organization, the Chinese swoop right in, gaining good will and advantage and leverage on critical problems. We are not part of the Law of the Sea because we have not ratified that treaty; China is, though. And when we talk about precious rare minerals that are in the ocean, guess who is going to be deciding how they will be allocated and what are the rules of extraction, et cetera. Not us, because we are not part of that international organization, but the Chinese certainly will have influence. These cuts are shortsighted. There is no other way to put it. To paraphrase the former Secretary of Defense, an outstanding marine-- Secretary of Defense Mattis--if we don't fund these soft-power and diplomatic programs, then we need to buy more ammunition. In fact, we need to buy more ammunition anyway, but if we don't fund these programs, we won't be able to afford to buy all the ammunition we need. I oppose this package on the basis of both its contents and what it would mean for the future of bipartisanship in this Chamber and congressional power of the purse. Let me be clear. With this vote, we are surrendering our constitutional responsibilities and authorities to the Executive. We are indeed close to violating our oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution--too close for comfort. I would urge my colleagues to reject this. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote on the nomination of Mr. Anthony Tata to be Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The position is absolutely critical and crucial. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is responsible for all personnel matters in the Department of Defense, including military families, childcare, family and financial readiness, the military school system, and working with the military services to ensure the health and welfare of the force. It requires a leader of the highest quality of judgment, expertise, and character. There is no question that President Trump has the right to choose whom he wants in this critical role, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should be someone who is capable, without question, to meet the demands of the job and the expectations of those he will lead. Mr. Tata was nominated 5 years ago for a position of similar importance in the Defense Department. However, the Armed Services Committee considered his nomination carefully and, on a bipartisan basis, declined to even bring his nomination to a vote. President Trump ultimately withdrew his nomination. I fail to understand why he now would be qualified to oversee millions of servicemembers and their families as the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. I respect and I appreciate his military service, but his record of public statements and behavior toward individuals with whom he disagrees politically is disqualifying for a position of this significance. Mr. Tata's history of controversial and divisive statements is well- documented. Prior to his last nomination, he publicly called President Obama, the Commander in Chief, ``a terrorist leader.'' And he said that then-CIA Director John Brennan deserved to be executed. More recently, he made unsubstantiated claims that there are ``mutinous discussions'' within the military ranks to sabotage President Trump, and he called for a complete purge of Pentagon leadership, including firing all four- star generals and senior career civilian employees. I am concerned that Mr. Tata has a misguided and discriminatory view of the military and civilian workforces he would oversee. Our servicemembers and their families and the civilian employees who support them come from all backgrounds and political persuasions. They come from every State and territory in the Union--red States and blue States. Mr. Tata, to be effective, would need to serve all members of the Department of Defense and their families, not just those with whom he agrees politically. His public record and past performance at the Pentagon do not inspire confidence in this great regard. Mr. Tata failed to alleviate any of these concerns during his hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, he doubled down on his goal of removing leadership seen as not loyal to this administration and gave no indication he would exercise measured and independent judgment and seems intent on furthering this administration's political weaponization of the military. The worst thing that could happen to our military is it becomes a political arm of the President of the United States--any President. Military men and women take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not to serve a President. That has kept our military not only above the political fray but the most expert, the most credible, and the most dominant military force in history. If we have personnel in key positions that are evaluating people on their political beliefs rather than their merit, talent, and commitment to the Constitution, we are making a profound mistake. As I hope my colleagues know, my top priority has been national security and avoiding partisanship as much as one can do. I am ready and able to pick up the phone and talk to people in the Department of Defense, regardless of political party. We look consciously--I look consciously--for common ground in which we can work together because, ultimately, it is not about Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, Republican priorities; it is about the welfare and effectiveness of men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. They deserve more than partisanship. They serve cooperation, consideration, and respect for their views. The American people also deserve that because they are the ones who ultimately are supporting these men and women and not just in a financial sense but in a very, very strong, profound, emotional sense of lending their support, of saluting these brave men and women. I am extraordinarily proud of that. Having reviewed twice and very carefully Mr. Tata's record, particularly his political--indeed, naked political assertions of going after his enemies, placing him in this position would, I think, put him at a point where he would do more harm than good. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes and Senator Hagerty of Tennessee be allowed to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. REED. Madam President, Medicaid is a lifeline for seniors. More than 7 million seniors get care through Medicaid and in two in three nursing homes, residents pay for that care with Medicaid. The bill we are voting on today takes away key revenue sources from States and nursing homes. Brown University's School of Public Health has estimated that 579 nursing homes nationwide would be at risk of closing because of this bill. Even if nursing homes do not close, they will have to reduce their beds. This motion would simply prevent any cuts in Medicaid that could lead to nursing home closures, something I believe we all can agree on, and I would urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. REED. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motions to commit for the bill H.R. 1 be printed in the Congressional Record: A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to strike chapter 1 of subtitle B of title VII; A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to strike provisions that reduce or eliminate Medicaid benefits or shift costs to States; A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to increase the Federal medical assistance percentage to 90 percent for all Medicaid beneficiaries; and A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to ensure the bill increases average, annual, after-tax-and- transfer resources for each of the bottom three deciles of households by income in each year from 2026 through 2034.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motion to commit for the bill H.R. 1 be printed in the Congressional Record: A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to eliminate any provisions that change State provider taxes and eliminate any provisions that would lead to any nursing home closures.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this partisan reconciliation bill. Republicans have named it the One Big Beautiful Bill, but you would only lose that kind of title if you were trying to hide something. And here is the simple truth: This bill takes health insurance and food assistance away from millions of Americans and gives President Trump's billionaire and millionaire friends giant tax cuts. Indeed, this bill would provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax giveaways to the country's 902 billionaires and millionaires while kicking 17 million Americans off their health insurance. Just weigh the balance: 902 billionaire beneficiaries with extraordinary tax deductions and tax benefits versus denial of healthcare to 17 million Americans. It doesn't balance. And despite slashing healthcare, somehow this bill will add trillions of dollars to our national debt. It will further weaken our financial position in the world. It will, indeed, have many countries wondering if the United States is, as it has been since the end of World War II, the place to put their resources, their investments, their reserves. This could have profound fiscal and monetary implications to the United States, and if you tie that together with this tariff battle, we are headed economically in the wrong direction, as we are socially. And this bill is loaded with outrageous special interest giveaways and President Trump's personal political priorities; for example, $7.5 billion for wealthy developers to use for luxury housing and other high-priced developments at a time when affordable housing for working families is a crisis in every State in the country; $1.7 billion for gunmakers who will be able to sell silencers, sawed-off shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and other very dangerous weapons and components tax-free, making our streets more dangerous for police and for the American people, and, indeed, especially for the police because they are the first responders. They are the ones that are typically going to the door wondering if the person behind that door has an automatic weapon or some other weapon designed not to hunt or shoot but to kill. Hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax cuts for extraordinarily wealthy oil-and-gas companies, and $40 million for a Garden of Heroes, a sculpture garden to honor President Trump's favorite historical personalities. And at the same time, it slashes the budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which makes sure that shady payday lenders, mortgage lenders, and banks don't fleece American families. And, in particular, the military division of the CFPB protects men and women in the uniform of the United States. We were able to pass an interest cap of 36 percent for Active-Duty personnel, and that is going to be ignored because there is no one to enforce it. And we are going to see, as we have in the past, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen exploited--systematically exploited--by all those little automobile shops and payday lenders and everything else that surrounds every military base in this country. It is a tale as old as time. My Republican colleagues showering the rich with tax benefits and prioritizing favored industries and friends. President Bush joined with the Republican Congress to do that; of course, I opposed it. And by the way, when President Bush did that, we were projected to have over the next 10 years a multitrillion-dollar surplus. Of course, this legislation will lead us to a multitrillion- dollar deficit, and it is interesting because when I was younger, the Republicans all associated themselves with fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, surpluses. That is not the case now. President Trump exacerbated the situation in his first term by his grand giveaway, but this time, President Trump and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are depriving millions of Americans of their healthcare coverage to pay for it. They are intent on punishing the most vulnerable Americans in this bill simply for the crime of being poor--in fact, in many cases, despite working very long hours and being poor. I came here to Congress to the Senate after serving my country in the U.S. Army, as the Presiding Officer did with great distinction in the U.S. Navy as a Navy SEAL. I came here to serve my constituents and improve the lives of average Americans, and I think most of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, came with the same goal. And according to press reports, a few of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are starting to realize that this bill is going to do great damage to their constituents. One Republican colleague has warned that this bill could leave 600,000 of his constituents without healthcare coverage and blow a $38 billion hole in his State's budget. That would be a devastating effect. One of the other aspects of this attack on our healthcare system is there are some people that believe, well, Medicaid doesn't touch me. It certainly does because when you extract that much money from the healthcare system, what will private health insurance do? They will raise their rates. Everyone will be paying more, and some won't be able to afford it. They will have to go without coverage. And that is going to be a tragedy for this country. Now, knowing the damage this bill is going to do, one must ask why would anyone support it? But this legislation is more than just numbers. I have heard from countless Rhode Islanders who are concerned about these cuts during meetings, in letters, when I bump into them at the grocery store, the pharmacy. They have been telling me about how Medicaid has helped them and their families. I have been meeting, for example, with Christina from Smithfield, RI, for many years. Her daughter Lauren was born with cystic fibrosis and has endured countless hospitalizations, procedures, medications, and other challenges as she navigates her life with this disease. Christina, Lauren, and their family have private insurance, but Medicaid also helps cover the expenses not covered by private insurance for people with serious illnesses who are not able to work. When President Trump and congressional Republicans began proposing these cuts to Medicaid, Christina told me: Lauren was born with CF, a rare, genetic, progressive disease which affects her lungs, GI, and Endocrine systems. I had no idea we carried this gene. When Lauren was born she spent a month in the hospital. We almost lost her. When she was 5, she contracted a germ that put her in the hospital for a month and almost killed her. Her lung function fell to 70 percent. At 13, I thought she was going to die. Her hospital stays were every 3 months for 2 weeks with IV treatments. Her lung function fell to 30 percent. With one of the medicines for CF, she was able to finally get her lung function back to 65 percent at 23 years old. She still suffers every day, just trying to breathe is difficult. If she catches the common cold, it could put her in the hospital. She has a hard time keeping weight on and her GI is a disaster. She spends hours in the bathroom. She developed CF-related diabetes, which always puts her in danger. Every day is rigorous treatments and medications, just to stay alive. It is with the help of the NIH and the FDA that she is still alive. Please do not make these cuts. If Medicaid is cut, when she is 26, two years from now she will have no way to pay for all her hospitalizations, medications, and treatments. Few could afford to keep her alive. It is this simple. Without Medicaid she will die. We need your help! Carolina from Central Falls, RI, shared similar concerns for her daughter. My daughter has special needs, and we rely on Medicaid for her needs. Not having Medicaid would create a sink hole for us. People with profound autism need lifetime, 24/7 care. As you consider budget cuts, it is important to me as your constituent that you work to ensure that this vulnerable population has access to the critical supports that it needs to survive. I will be looking to you for your courage and leadership. Indeed. And now we are looking across the aisle for courage and leadership to reject this flawed bill. I received an email from one constituent, Wally from Cranston, RI. She is a 71-year-old retiree on Medicare. Her husband is 72, with Alzheimer's disease, living in a nursing home under hospice care and relying on Medicaid for his healthcare. She wrote to me that she was ``terrified at all the cuts to programs and services'' that she and her husband so desperately rely on. Without Medicaid, she wonders if she or her husband would be able to continue receiving care. I also heard from Diane in Coventry, RI, whose daughter gets lifesaving care through Medicare. Diane said: Medicaid is important to me personally. Medicaid matters to my family. My 15-year-old daughter suffered a brain bleed and a stroke at age 5. It came out of nowhere and was very unexpected. She has spent a lot of time in the hospital, rehabilitation services, doctors' offices, appointments, etc. over the past almost 10 years. Medicaid allows her to be home and taken care of on a daily basis. Without Medicaid, she would not be able to receive hospital level care at home. She wouldn't have a wheelchair or any other durable medical equipment. She wouldn't be able to get her life saving medications or the nourishment she needs through her G tube. Please, I urge you to save Medicaid not only for my family, but millions of others. All of our lives depend on it. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say: We are not going to cut these people's Medicaid; we are just going after the fraudsters, the freeloaders who aren't working. Now, who exactly are these fraudsters and freeloaders? Is it the elderly patient who needs expensive nursing home care? Is it the child with a serious, chronic health condition? Should we cut off these people's access to healthcare because they can't work, they physically cannot work, or because the constant paperwork requirements got lost in the shuffle? Let's be clear. If my colleagues were serious about eliminating fraud, they would be providing States with more resources to investigate questionable claims and bad actors. Medicaid coverage is not extravagant; it is a lifeline. If my colleagues were sincere in their claims that these cuts are to protect the program ``for the people who need it the most,'' as the majority leader has claimed, then they would be investing the so-called savings back into Medicaid instead of blowing it on tax cuts for the well-off. Instead, this bill is cutting funding to States for Medicaid, and States will have no choice but to pick and choose who will get access to care. But don't take my word for it. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that this bill will cause nearly 17 million Americans to lose their health insurance--17 million people. That is not fraud. It is just making it harder for people to get healthcare. On top of that, even if you are one of the lucky ones who gets to keep your Medicaid, will you still be able to get care? Nursing homes rely on Medicaid. More than 6 in 10 nursing home residents in Rhode Island are on Medicaid. As Medicaid funding is cut, what will nursing homes do? I imagine some will have to close their doors or dramatically reduce the number of beds. So you can be one of these fairly well-to-do Rhode Islanders trying to get mom in a nursing home and you are willing to pay, but if it is closed or there are only 5 beds where there used to be 20, she is going to be where, in my generation, grandparents were: in the living room in a hospital bed being cared for--in those days, typically by your mother. So this approach to Medicaid is going to touch every aspect of American life, and the same can be said about the community healthcare centers. Medicaid makes up a huge portion of the operating budget for community health centers, which provide primary, dental, and behavioral care to more than 200,000 Rhode Islanders. That is roughly one in five Rhode Islanders. It is hard enough to find a doctor now; it will only get harder if a community health center closes its doors and thousands of patients don't have a doctor anymore. And where do all those patients end up when they can't get routine care? The emergency room. That means there will be lines out the door, and if you have a serious health event and need to get in, you better get used to waiting a long time. This is not how a health system is supposed to run. And in Rhode Island, our health system is already on the brink. People are just getting by. People are waiting in the hallways of ERs for a bed upstairs. People are spending days on the phone trying to find a doctor. We should be making these things better, not worse. But, again, Republicans' main priority seems not to be the physical or financial health of everyday Americans; it is providing massive tax cuts to President Trump's billionaire and millionaire friends. There is certainly nothing wrong with being successful, and there is nothing wrong with wealth. That is something that has been part of the American dream since our beginning. But what it requires is opportunity, and one of the fundamental opportunities it requires is good health and good education. What this bill will do is destroy our healthcare system and force the States to make dramatic cuts to the education system. We are shutting down opportunity in America while we enrich the wealthy elite. The American dream, as I believe it, is about the middle class and a government that is focused on them, not taking $1 trillion from Medicaid so Republicans can gift to those who have already benefited from many other gifts. Let's put the enormity of this transfer to the wealthiest in perspective. There are about 128 million households in America. Yet somehow this bill gives the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households a $250,000 tax cut--a giveaway that is over three times larger than what the median American household makes in a year. When confronted with this point, Republicans consistently try to hide the ball. Middle- and working-class Americans are getting tax cuts too, they say. Who cares if the rich get richer? Well, the Senate bill raises taxes on the lowest income Americans--the same families from whom Republicans are ripping away healthcare and other benefits. While we are voting on this bill without a full analysis of its impact on households, the Congressional Budget Office found that the House-passed version would take around $1,600 away from these lowest income households each year after accounting for tax changes and benefits cuts. And it is not just low-income Americans. Researchers at Penn's Wharton School of Business have found that most Americans lose money under the House bill in future years too. I want to be crystal clear. We need to reform our tax system. We need to make it fairer for working Americans, not just for the ultrawealthy. We hear from people so often that government is broken. They are right. Our tax system is unfair and needs reform. But giving the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans an extra quarter of a million dollars every year is not fixing the government; it is just adding to the sense of unfairness and brokenness that so many citizens feel. We can do a bipartisan tax bill that is both fully paid for and that helps average Americans. In fact, we almost did that last summer when the House passed a tax bill 357 to 70 that would have extended the child tax credit and reinstated tax cuts for businesses without increasing the deficit. Forty-eight bipartisan Senators voted for that bill in this very Chamber, but it was blocked because Republican leaders wanted to pass something like this bill before us today. My Republican colleagues have drafted a bill that is neither paid for nor helps most Americans. Worst of all, they have chosen to take from the poor and the middle class and the working class to give to billionaires. This bill is very bad policy. It is almost un-American if you believe that the essence of America, as expressed by one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, is to give every person a fair chance in the race of life. This bill denies that chance to millions and millions of Americans while enhancing and filling the pockets of the wealthiest, and I oppose it. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 1582, the GENIUS Act. I believe that this legislation as it is currently drafted is fundamentally flawed. It exposes taxpayers, consumers, and the financial system to unacceptable risk, and it creates venues for criminals, terrorists, and rogue governments to finance their illicit activities. Despite these dangerous flaws, we will not have the opportunity to offer one, single substantive amendment, and with a bill of this nature, the legislative process should require a very significant amendment process. This legislation before us places the government's stamp of approval on so-called stablecoins, which are crypto dollars that could be minted by anyone--Amazon, Walmart, Facebook, X, the Trump family, and even foreign companies. It gives stablecoin issuers an enormous privilege: a U.S. Government license to effectively create dollars without demanding very much of anything in return. Here is how the business works. 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 assets that generate interest and yield. The company keeps that interest and yield, but it is supposed to give you back your dollar whenever you ask for it. You can also take the IOU, which you receive for your dollar, and transfer it to other people, and you can use it to buy other things, mostly other crypto. If this sounds similar to a bank, that is because it is. Banks allow customers to send and receive money. Stablecoins allow customers to do the same thing--just outside the banking system and purportedly in a faster and cheaper way. Now, competition can force banks to do a better job, and it should be more convenient for consumers to transfer funds. However, I believe that competition should come from the merits of the product and the underlying technology, not from regulatory arbitrage as provided in the GENIUS Act. The light-touch regulatory regime in this bill is premised on two faulty assumptions. First, it assumes customer funds are safe because they are fully reserved with one-to-one backing of all customer liabilities. Second, it assumes that stablecoin issuers are inherently risk-free because they engage in only one activity: issuing stablecoins. But experience tells us that these kinds of assumptions are flawed. During the 2008 financial crisis, we saw institutions with very similar if not these exact characteristics fail and get billions in taxpayer bailouts. We were assured that money market funds were low risk because they were fully reserved with shares pegged to a dollar. We were assured that derivatives were innovative tools that didn't need heavyhanded regulation. We were assured that Fannie and Freddie were safe because they engaged in one simple business. However, taxpayers needed to backstop $2 trillion in money market fund liabilities. The government gave AIG--an insurance company involved with derivatives--a $200 billion bailout, and taxpayers still stand behind $8 trillion in Fannie and Freddie liabilities. Now, I do not believe it is appropriate to apply the full spectrum of banking regulations to stablecoins, but many more elements of the banking laws and the money transmission laws must be imported into this bill in order to make it work. There are dozens of sensible and basic rules that apply to similar firms that handle people's money. The GENIUS bill says that stablecoin companies no longer need to comply with many of these consumer protection laws. Instead, they can comply with a Federal framework containing very few of them. Now let me highlight a few specifics that I think the public should be aware of. First, stablecoin companies could operate with near-zero capital. The bill says that capital requirements ``shall not exceed what is sufficient to maintain the ongoing operations of the issuer.'' This establishes a ceiling, not a floor, not a minimum level of capital that regulators would deem appropriate given the business activities. This repeats the mistakes of the 1990s and the 2000s, when nonbank financial institutions like Lehman Brothers operated with barely 3 percent capital ratios. When the firm got into trouble, there was no cushion to bear losses, and customers and taxpayers had to step in. Strong capital is critical. Indeed, in March 2023, when Silicon Valley Bank failed, taxpayers bailed out the uninsured deposits of a stablecoin company to the tune of $3.3 billion. Second, the audit requirement is calibrated so narrowly that it does not cover a single existing stablecoin company--not one. Independent audits make it harder for companies to cook the books or dip into customer funds. I can't imagine why we wouldn't require these types of audits for stablecoin companies holding vast amounts of cash and securities. Third, there are no merger or change-in-control rules. These rules, if in place, could prohibit felons convicted of financial crimes and fraud from acquiring a stablecoin issuer. Now, if this bill passes, they can go ahead and acquire it. Fourth, the enforcement provisions are dangerously weak. The government will need to wait until wrongdoing has already occurred before it can act. It would be powerless to intervene early to prevent people from getting harmed in the first place, and even then, there is no power for regulators to revoke a company's charter. If one of these companies brazenly mishandles customer funds, the regulators will not have adequate tools to stop them. Fifth, when a stablecoin company fails, it must go through ordinary bankruptcy, and that, I believe, is a mistake. We have seen other crypto firms, like FTX and Celsius, go bankrupt recently. Customers have waited for many, many months and in some cases years to get their money back. Instead, we should set up a bank-like resolution regime, guaranteeing that customers immediately get their money back up to a limit, and the industry should pay for that insurance to satisfy those customers who have been denied their funds. Sixth, regulators have no express authority to issue new rules to address emerging threats as they arise. Without the ability to issue updated rules, the GENIUS Act will become outdated very quickly. Given the speed of financial innovation, these regulations could be out of date--maybe within a year or less. Together, these flaws make the GENIUS bill worse than the status quo, and that brings me to what I consider one of the biggest problems in the legislation: the effect on national security. GENIUS allows foreign-based stablecoin companies to operate freely in the United States. Today, the world's largest stablecoin--in other words, the world's largest cryptodollar--is issued not in the United States but in El Salvador. This stablecoin is called Tether, and it is the biggest beneficiary of this bill. Let me tell you a bit about Tether. Tether was fined by U.S. regulators in 2021 for misleading customers into thinking that their funds were fully backed. Despite this misconduct, Tether has never undergone an audit, and this bill would not require one. Tether is used by North Korea. According to FBI indictments in 2023, North Korean IT workers have ``obtained illegal employment in the tech and crypto industry and then asked to be paid in stablecoins like Tether. . . . After receiving payment, they funneled their earnings back to North Korea.'' According to government reports, North Korea has used at least $5 billion of stolen crypto to fund its weapons of mass destruction programs. This comprises between 40 percent and 50 percent of its budget for these programs. Tether is also used by terrorists. According to the Treasury Department's 2024 National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, ``ISIS and other terrorist groups have moved towards using stablecoins, including Tether, to move or store funds.'' In October 2023, the Senator from Wyoming asked then-Attorney General Garland to open a criminal investigation into Tether because it has ``facilitated significant illicit finance activity . . . including significant terrorism financing for Hamas' malevolent attack on Israel.'' Tether is used by Russian arms dealers. According to testimony before the Banking Committee by the Deputy Treasury Secretary in 2024, ``[W]e've seen Russia increasingly turning to alternative payment mechanisms--including the stablecoin Tether--to try to circumvent our sanctions and continue to finance its war machine'' in Ukraine. Tether is also used for human trafficking, scams, and fraud. According to a report published by the United Nations in 2024, Tether ``has become a preferred choice for [Southeast Asian] cyber-fraud operations and money launderers alike due to its stability and the ease, anonymity, and low fees of its transactions.'' During a single year, from the middle of 2022 through the middle of 2023, a blockchain analysis company uncovered ``$17 billion of Tether transactions connected to . . . various criminal activities,'' including human trafficking and romance scams. And the list goes on. Iranian diplomats, Venezuelan oil companies, drug traffickers, ransomware attackers--all are drawn to Tether. Under the GENIUS bill, Tether could be offered and sold in the United States without being required to meet any U.S. anti-money laundering or sanctions compliance requirements. Tether would just need to demonstrate the ability to freeze its coins if they fall into the wrong hands--a technological capability that Tether already has and that it has apparently refused to use because it still tolerates illicit activity. Tether would not be subject to full-blown licensure and supervision. Tether would instead need to meet home-country requirements in El Salvador that are ``comparable'' to U.S. requirements, but this term is ill-defined and may be materially weaker than the standards in the United States. In fact, I would suggest those standards are highly subjective given the arrangements we have seen in El Salvador with its President and its legal system. These weak restrictions would not even kick in for 3 years after enactment. That means business as usual for Tether. It means more WMD proliferation, more Iranian oil sales, more Russian arms deals, more tax evasion, more black-market drug sales, and more human trafficking. Further, if Tether chooses not to meet these bare requirements, then it could not be offered or sold on centralized trading venues in the United States. But there is a huge exception allowing Tether to offer its stablecoin in the United States through decentralized trading ventures, also known as DeFi. DeFi platforms are exactly where North Korea trades crypto and where the bulk of illicit activity occurs. According to the Treasury Department, North Korea laundered at least $455 million in stolen crypto on just one DeFi platform called Tornado Cash as of 2022. Last year, North Korea laundered at least $147 million through the same platform. If these trades occurred with real dollars in real banks, the government would have tools to stop them. But because these trades occur using foreign-issued cryptodollars outside the banking system, the government lacks these tools, and the GENIUS Act would not give them those tools. As we place in effect the U.S. Government stamp of approval on Tether, I think it is entirely sensible to be providing Treasury with new authorities to address how Tether is used for illegal purposes around the world. We should also be looking at the stronger approach taken in Europe, where Tether may not be offered or sold--full stop--unless it is fully licensed and meets all EU laws. If someone is in the business of creating dollars in any form, they should be subject to full U.S. jurisdiction. If someone creates a platform that is used by North Korea to launder stolen dollar alternatives, they should be within the reach of U.S. sanctions laws. I hope Republicans and Democrats can at least agree on that. But this bill does not respect these commonsense principles. Last Congress, the Department of Treasury sent up a legislative package with new authorities to crack down on Tether. The Deputy Secretary testified before the Banking Committee about that package. I worked across the aisle with Senators Warner, Brown, and Romney on legislation to implement some of these provisions. Unfortunately, we could not get it enacted. The bill before us contains none of these provisions. I have filed an amendment to provide these tools to Treasury; but, regrettably, as I have indicated before, we will not have an opportunity be to vote on any amendments. There is another aspect of this bill normalizing the operation of Tether. It turns out that Trump's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has millions of dollars in financial interests tied to Tether. The investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald that Mr. Lutnick ran and owned manages Tether's reserves and generates millions of dollars in fees. Cantor has provided Tether with working capital through a hybrid debt- equity investment. It has been reported that Cantor owns 5 percent of Tether--a stake worth millions of dollars. Cantor and Tether have just announced a new Bitcoin fund for retail investors. Mr. Lutnick--the Secretary of Commerce and someone who I think has had some influence on how this bill has turned out and how it will be implemented--says he is divested from Cantor. But what he has really done is turned ownership and control over to his adult children who are in their twenties. Now, I invite the American people to judge for themselves whether Mr. Lutnick no longer has any financial exposure or business ties with Tether. Just a few month ago, the Trump family began issuing a stablecoin called USD1. This token has already been used by a foreign government to funnel money to Trump. Let me say that again: A foreign government has funneled money to the President of the United States. It turns out an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund made a $2 billion investment in a crypto company called Binance. But instead of using real dollars, they used USD1, the Trump cryptocurrency. That raises, I think, serious questions about a President of the United States receiving significant money from a foreign government. Rather than doing something about the President's obvious conflicts, the bill expressly affirms that he is able to call his stablecoin USD1. There is actually a provision green-lighting this name. We have given, legislatively, the President the use of this stablecoin name for his financial benefit. And the bill empowers the President's handpicked regulators to write the rules that will govern the stablecoin business. By authorizing money creation by shadowy offshore firms associated with the President of the United States and the Secretary of Commerce, this bill undermines our economy's most valuable asset--and that is the U.S. dollar. The effect may not be immediate, but I think it will happen eventually. The dollar is the world's reserve currency because the United States is considered a stable, predictable, and open society with a strong rule of law that countries and businesses want to trade and partner with. When the United States becomes less stable, less predictable, and less open, when politically connected people get special treatment, when Congress normalizes financial self-aggrandizement by the President, all of that makes the dollar less attractive and makes this country look like it is ruled by a despot. However, proponents claim this bill strengthens the dollar by stimulating demand for Treasury securities. But that cannot be justified at this point by the data. The entire stablecoin market is only 0.01 percent of the Treasury market. And according to an investor letter from the Elliott hedge fund--now, that firm is run by a major Republican donor, so I don't think this is a partisan description--the dollar enjoys an ``immense advantage'' as the world's reserve currency. But they point out that if the U.S. Government encourages adoption of crypto alternatives, that will ``marginalize the dollar'' and be ``profoundly dangerous.'' Even if legislation would modestly strengthen the dollar, it could not offset the erosion of the dollar that the administration is engineering through actions like sky-high tariffs and a trade embargo with China. And it could accelerate the erosion of the dollar if one day stablecoins become ``legal tender'' that could be used to pay taxes. And it wouldn't surprise me if one day the President sat at his desk and wrote a Presidential order that crypto can be used to pay taxes. I offered an amendment in the Banking Committee, which would prohibit this by declaring that the legal tender of the United States was the dollar, and the amendment was defeated. We need to apply real guardrails that will protect consumers and provide real tools for our national security Agencies to address this new technology--real guardrails and real tools, not words on a page that give the false appearance of protection when things go wrong. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this fundamentally flawed bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 1582, the so- called GENIUS Act. Several weeks ago, when the majority leader said we would have votes on amendments, I took him seriously, and I was one of the first to file. And we could have been voting on amendments--my amendments, those of my colleagues--at any time in the last few weeks, but that hasn't happened. That is regrettable because the GENIUS Act, as it is currently drafted, is, I believe, fundamentally flawed. The GENIUS Act exposes taxpayers, consumers, and the financial system to unacceptable risk and creates venues for criminals, terrorists, and rogue governments to finance their illicit activities. Among other things, this bill places the U.S. Government stamp of approval on Tether, the world's largest stablecoin, which is based in El Salvador and favored by North Korea, Russian arms dealers, ransomware attackers, the Iranian military, the drug cartels, and so many other criminal organizations. The GENIUS Act takes already weak State laws and makes them weaker and applies them nationwide, making it possible for stablecoin companies to operate with near-zero capital and unable to withstand a financial crisis. It is possible for stablecoin companies to avoid getting an audit. It is impossible for the government to revoke a stablecoin company's charter, even if it turns out to be a Ponzi scheme or if an executive dips into customer funds. The GENIUS Act buys into the belief that the billionaires running the industry know what they are doing and that the marriage of complex financial products and complex technology simply can't fail. The one thing the billionaires do know how to do is protect their interests. But, not surprisingly, this bill leaves open the door to bailouts, which we have seen time and time again for other lightly regulated nonbanks that got into trouble, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and Bear Stearns. When there is a run on a stablecoin--and there very likely will be a run one day--the industry will turn to the American taxpayer for a bailout, and the GENIUS Act paves the way for that to happen with no limits on the Federal Reserve's authority to prop up the industry. Finally, this bill perpetuates Donald Trump's naked corruption. It actually green-lights the name of Trump's stablecoin, USD1, and it allows Trump's handpicked regulators to write the rules of the road governing his most recent business venture. We need to provide real guardrails that will protect consumers, real tools for our national security Agencies to address this new technology, and real authority for regulators to intervene in a crisis--real guardrails and real tools, not words on a page that give only the aura of regulation and protection with no teeth. My amendments and those offered by colleagues on both sides of the aisle would provide these tools and authorities. However, it appears that we won't have the opportunity to consider a single one of them and improve this legislation. Because of that, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 297, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 111, Brett Shumate, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General. Had I been present, I would have voted no. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 298, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 49, David Fotouhi, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Had I been present, I would have voted no. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 299, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 49, David Fotouhi, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Had I been present, I would have voted no. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 300, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 112, Stephen Vaden, of Tennessee, to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. Had I been present, I would have voted no. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 301, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 112, Stephen Vaden, of Tennessee, to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. Had I been present, I would have voted no. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 302, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 117, Andrew Hughes, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Had I been present, I would have voted no. I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 303, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 117, Andrew Hughes, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague and friend in Kansas for his partnership in recognizing the Army as the coleaders of the Army Caucus here in the U.S. Senate. Thank you, Senator, very much. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague from Kansas, to recognize a remarkable moment in our Nation's history. On June 14, 1775, delegates from each of the American Colonies met in Philadelphia to convene the Second Continental Congress. On that momentous day, Congress voted to establish the Continental Army and tasked it to ``provide for the common defense of these colonies.'' The following day, the Congress unanimously elected George Washington to be the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. It was an auspicious start for what would become the greatest fighting force the world has ever known. Today--or in a few days, certainly--we celebrate the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army. The Army has a straightforward, but enormously critical, mission: to fight and win the Nation's wars. Today, we take a moment to reflect on that mission and to honor all of the soldiers who have served faithfully in the Army ranks. Whether as volunteers or in response to a draft, millions and millions of men and women have answered the call to serve. They each swore an oath to the Constitution, a unique feature of service to our Nation. By swearing an oath to the Constitution and its ideals, rather than a leader or a party, American soldiers stand apart as patriots, not partisans. And our Nation stands proudly throughout the world. American soldiers have served on their own soil to break the bonds of tyranny and to keep our Nation united. They have served on foreign soils to defend our allies, uphold humanity, and protect the American people. And they have stepped forward to help in humanitarian crises and natural disasters at home and around the world when needed most. It is also fitting to acknowledge the contribution of the Department of Army civilians, who take the same oath and who bring their skills and dedication to bear in support of the Army's mission. And, of course, we also pause to thank all of the families who, over the course of 2\1/2\ centuries have stood by their loved ones in their service--families who supported their soldiers in the earliest days with little or no communication to today, where family witness in real time the challenges their loved ones face. Families have and always will be the true strength of our Army. The Army's story also is not just one of battles won, but of values upheld, values of leadership, respect, selfless service, integrity, and personal courage--and a value that resonates deeply with me: duty, honor, country. Finally, we pay tribute to those who gave the last full measure of devotion in service to our Nation. Their sacrifice is woven into the very fabric of our history, and their legacy lives on in every soldier who raises their right hand and takes the oath. For me personally, the opportunity to serve as an officer in the U.S. Army and to lead American soldiers was the greatest privilege of my life. I would end by recalling the enduring motto of the Continental Army: This we'll defend. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote for the nomination of Mr. Michael Duffey to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. This position is unique in the Department of Defense. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment has a wide range of duties, including delivering on a timely basis cost-effective capabilities for the Armed Forces; supervising all elements of the defense acquisition enterprise and the defense industrial base; overseeing the modernization of our nuclear forces; and serving as a principal adviser to the Secretary on acquisition, sustainment, and core logistics. It requires a leader of the highest quality of judgment, expertise, and character. There is no question that President Trump has a right to choose who he wants in critical roles, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should be someone who is capable, without question, to meet the demands of the job and the expectations of those he will lead. They should have the experience and temperament to manage one of the most complex offices in the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, my view is that Mr. Duffey lacks experience leading any organization remotely as large and complex as the Department of Defense acquisition enterprise. For better or worse, the industry and the workforce that supports the Pentagon is enormous, complicated, and is a huge factor in our Nation's economy. Mismanaging it could harm taxpayers' investments, the American economy, and workers' lives. Do we want to risk hundreds of billions of dollars in acquisition programs to such a nominee? I have serious doubts about Mr. Duffey's ability to run this critical function of our government. Furthermore, in 2019, Mr. Duffey played a key role in the scandal that led to President Trump's first impeachment: withholding military aid from Ukraine to extort information on Mr. Trump's political opponents. While serving as a top official in the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Duffey directed the Pentagon to withhold $250 million from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative while Mr. Trump simultaneously demanded that President Zelenskyy hand over any information he had about Mr. Biden's family. Mr. Duffey's role in this outrageous event was brought to light during the impeachment proceedings. In my view, abusing the privilege of public office to exact political revenge is disqualifying. If confirmed, there are legitimate questions about Mr. Duffey's willingness to disregard the statutory directions of Congress. And, finally, Mr. Duffey coauthored a chapter for the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 that suggested Federal procurement policy should be used to attack so-called woke policies in corporate America. It is not hard to imagine how Mr. Duffey could use his position as the head of the largest acquisition organization in the world to weaponize Federal funding against private corporations that he and President Trump disagree with politically. We have seen this played out in the context of universities. We have seen this played out in the context of going after funding that NIH provides to many universities, but, particularly, this all-out assault on people that the President perceives as being unfit or unsupportive of him, that directly translates to Mr. Duffey to not just esteemed universities throughout the country but our national defense-- corporations that, in fact, have embraced the idea of bringing us all together, getting the best possible person, moving them up. That would be an incredible disaster and failure for the Nation. And Mr. Duffey failed to alleviate any of these concerns during his Senate Armed Services Committee testimony. As I hope my colleagues know, my top priority has always been national security, and partisanship has no place in that mission. And I will always pick up the phone for whomever holds leadership positions in the Department of Defense, and I will seek opportunities to work with them to strengthen and support our military. Whomever they may be, I hope that they comport themselves with the wisdom, composure, and character--underlining ``character''--that this awesome responsibility demands. Our men and women in uniform and, indeed, the American people deserve nothing less. And the question I have is this: Is Mr. Duffey the best we have to offer? I do not believe so, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, critical programs for Americans from all walks of life are under threat right now: Medicare and Medicaid. The Trump administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are working to pass partisan legislation that would make massive cuts to Medicaid. Indeed, the House of Representatives passed their bill last night, voting for the largest cut ever to healthcare for working- class Americans by a single vote. That is why I am introducing the Protect Medicare and Medicaid Act of 2025 with my colleagues Senators Heinrich and Markey. Under the budget reconciliation process, Republicans can ram through massive cuts to Medicaid or Medicare by a simple majority in the U.S. Senate. It shouldn't be possible to use this fast-track process to strip away the healthcare coverage of millions of Americans. Regrettably, that is what Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are doing. Senators who served before me had the wisdom to say that this process is too partisan to touch a program like Social Security, which serves as a lifeline for retirees and has worked to reduce poverty among the elderly, and therefore exempted Social Security from the budget reconciliation process. The bill I am introducing today is very simple. It would exempt Medicare and Medicaid from budget reconciliation, alongside Social Security. These programs are too important to fall victim to partisan attacks. Medicare and Medicaid combined provide health insurance to well over 100 million Americans, providing nursing home care to seniors and those with disabilities, health insurance for children and pregnant women, and countless others. Without these programs, millions of Americans would lose insurance, go bankrupt, or both. One party should not be able to unilaterally dismantle these programs. This bill would prevent that from happening. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort to protect the healthcare coverage of tens of millions of our fellow Americans.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ending Taxpayer Support for Big Egg Producers Act. This legislation would help ensure that Federal funding intended to fight the avian flu outbreak is used responsibly to eradicate the disease and lower the cost of eggs, and does not go to large or highly profitable companies. I have expressed concerns to both Democratic and Republican administrations that major egg producers may be taking advantage of the avian flu outbreak to engage in price gouging. The five largest U.S. egg producers control roughly half of the country's egg market, limiting choices for American consumers. I am glad that the Department of Justice has opened a probe into this potential anticompetitive behavior. The fact is, egg prices remain high as companies continue to reel in profits. One company, Cal-Maine Foods, recently announced in an SEC filing that it is spending up to $500 million to buy back shares for the benefit of the founder's family. Cal-Maine also recently reported quarterly profits of $509 million, more than three times what it made in the same period a year ago. Despite its tremendous profits, last year Cal Maine received $44 million in USDA indemnity payments to compensate for bird deaths due to the avian flu outbreak. It should be uncontroversial that a company that has earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars of cash on-hand and expected earnings for stock buybacks also has the resources to bear losses and implement biosecurity measures without taxpayer assistance. There are also some very large private companies that have benefited from government assistance under this program. While these companies do not have access to liquidity from the public markets, their size and national scale provide them with greater access to funding from banks and other lenders on terms that are more favorable than those available to smaller private companies that operate regionally or locally. Further, any company that is private-equity backed surely has similar access to funding through the sponsor of the investment fund that owns the company. This legislation would ensure that taxpayer funds to support egg producers will be made available to publicly traded or private equity- backed companies only if they will not pay dividends or buy back stock. To receive taxpayer assistance, these companies also must certify that they cannot access alternative sources of financing. There are strong penalties, including criminal liability, for falsifying these certifications. As egg prices remain high, and the Trump administration limits Federal resources at the Department of Agriculture, we must ensure that these limited resources are used effectively to combat the avian flu and help producers who need it most, rather than highly profitable companies. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, critical programs for Americans from all walks of life are under threat right now: Medicare and Medicaid. The Trump administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are working to pass partisan legislation that would make massive cuts to Medicaid. Indeed, the House of Representatives passed their bill last night, voting for the largest cut ever to healthcare for working- class Americans by a single vote. That is why I am introducing the Protect Medicare and Medicaid Act of 2025 with my colleagues Senators Heinrich and Markey. Under the budget reconciliation process, Republicans can ram through massive cuts to Medicaid or Medicare by a simple majority in the U.S. Senate. It shouldn't be possible to use this fast-track process to strip away the healthcare coverage of millions of Americans. Regrettably, that is what Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are doing. Senators who served before me had the wisdom to say that this process is too partisan to touch a program like Social Security, which serves as a lifeline for retirees and has worked to reduce poverty among the elderly, and therefore exempted Social Security from the budget reconciliation process. The bill I am introducing today is very simple. It would exempt Medicare and Medicaid from budget reconciliation, alongside Social Security. These programs are too important to fall victim to partisan attacks. Medicare and Medicaid combined provide health insurance to well over 100 million Americans, providing nursing home care to seniors and those with disabilities, health insurance for children and pregnant women, and countless others. Without these programs, millions of Americans would lose insurance, go bankrupt, or both. One party should not be able to unilaterally dismantle these programs. This bill would prevent that from happening. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort to protect the healthcare coverage of tens of millions of our fellow Americans.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ending Taxpayer Support for Big Egg Producers Act. This legislation would help ensure that Federal funding intended to fight the avian flu outbreak is used responsibly to eradicate the disease and lower the cost of eggs, and does not go to large or highly profitable companies. I have expressed concerns to both Democratic and Republican administrations that major egg producers may be taking advantage of the avian flu outbreak to engage in price gouging. The five largest U.S. egg producers control roughly half of the country's egg market, limiting choices for American consumers. I am glad that the Department of Justice has opened a probe into this potential anticompetitive behavior. The fact is, egg prices remain high as companies continue to reel in profits. One company, Cal-Maine Foods, recently announced in an SEC filing that it is spending up to $500 million to buy back shares for the benefit of the founder's family. Cal-Maine also recently reported quarterly profits of $509 million, more than three times what it made in the same period a year ago. Despite its tremendous profits, last year Cal Maine received $44 million in USDA indemnity payments to compensate for bird deaths due to the avian flu outbreak. It should be uncontroversial that a company that has earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars of cash on-hand and expected earnings for stock buybacks also has the resources to bear losses and implement biosecurity measures without taxpayer assistance. There are also some very large private companies that have benefited from government assistance under this program. While these companies do not have access to liquidity from the public markets, their size and national scale provide them with greater access to funding from banks and other lenders on terms that are more favorable than those available to smaller private companies that operate regionally or locally. Further, any company that is private-equity backed surely has similar access to funding through the sponsor of the investment fund that owns the company. This legislation would ensure that taxpayer funds to support egg producers will be made available to publicly traded or private equity- backed companies only if they will not pay dividends or buy back stock. To receive taxpayer assistance, these companies also must certify that they cannot access alternative sources of financing. There are strong penalties, including criminal liability, for falsifying these certifications. As egg prices remain high, and the Trump administration limits Federal resources at the Department of Agriculture, we must ensure that these limited resources are used effectively to combat the avian flu and help producers who need it most, rather than highly profitable companies. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation.