Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Raymond Neirinckx after an incredible 43-year career, including the past 26 years as coordinator of the Rhode Island Housing Resource Commission. I first met and began working with Ray when I was serving in the Rhode Island State Senate, and I was immediately struck by his compassion and intelligence. Indeed, for nearly five decades, Ray used his considerable talents not for personal gain, but to help others in great need. Throughout his housing advocacy career, he counseled over 1,000 Rhode Islanders facing mortgage foreclosure. He helped these families navigate complex financial documents and often communicated with lenders on their behalf. Ray's painstaking work combing through legal documents and financial regulations helped many, many Rhode Islanders keep their homes despite dire circumstances. He would often go above and beyond what was required under his role, helping Rhode Islanders who could not avoid foreclosure get back on their feet. When I connected struggling Rhode Islanders with Ray, I knew they were in the best hands possible. Just as my constituents have relied on Ray's advice, I have often depended on Ray's expertise here in Congress. As I have drafted, considered, and voted on complex housing finance legislation, I have always turned to Ray for an analysis of how these proposals would operate in the real world and to understand what their real impact would be on Rhode Islanders. His insights were invaluable. While I will miss Ray at the Rhode Island Housing Resource Commission, I know that he is still just a phone call away. And luckily for Rhode Island, retirement is not the end of Ray's public service story. He is leading the first community development course within the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, work that will help people trying to turn their lives around. Ray, thank you for decades of extraordinary work, for dedicating your career to caring for and supporting your fellow Rhode Islanders, and for being a trusted partner. I wish you luck as you begin this new chapter.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, last week, this body advanced a War Powers Resolution to rein in President Trump's unauthorized military actions in Venezuela. This week, we will vote on final passage. I urge my colleagues to support it. It is important to recall how we arrived here. What happened on January 3--the military raid in Caracas, the capture of Nicolas Maduro, and the President's declaration that the United States will ``run'' Venezuela and seize its oil--was not an isolated incident; it was a culmination of a monthslong campaign built on dubious legal arguments, institutional failures, and Congress' willful abdication of our constitutional duties. For months, my colleagues and I warned that President Trump's military campaign against the alleged drug boats was strategically incoherent and legally questionable. We warned that the massive military buildup was not about narcotics trafficking. We warned that this campaign was always directed at military action against Venezuela. At every turn, this body had the opportunity to exercise oversight and demand accountability, and at every turn, we failed to do so. Now we must correct that failure. President Trump began laying the foundation for this operation--all the operations in Venezuela--the moment he was sworn in. On his first day in office, he designated multiple drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Shortly thereafter, he ended temporary protected status for some 350,000 Venezuelan migrants and authorized holding some at the naval station at Guantanamo before deportation. On March 15, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act--a wartime authority that had not been used since World War II--and declared that Tren de Aragua, or TdA, was a cartel plotting to invade and actively invading the United States as an ``invading force.'' He did this despite a National Intelligence Council assessment in April of 2025 that concluded the Venezuelan Government was not directing an invasion of the United States by TdA. It would not be the last time President Trump disregarded the law and the facts to achieve his policy goals. Also, by last summer, it was clear that, in addition to Secretary Hegseth, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were engaged in planning these various proposed operations, and their personal agendas converged. Their goal was ultimately to destabilize and depose Maduro and secure access to Venezuelan's oil reserves. Over the summer and fall, the Department of Defense flowed massive military assets into the Caribbean: the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, attack submarines, P-8 Poseidon aircraft, Aegis destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, and eventually the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group. The administration never explained why this buildup was necessary other than vague references to drug interdiction. It was clear then and it is perfectly clear now that they were preparing for an attack on Venezuela. By late summer, President Trump had signed a secret directive ordering the Pentagon to conduct maritime strikes on drug boats. Secretary Hegseth then signed an execute order, or EXORD, directing lethal military strikes against alleged drug boats. He has refused to submit that EXORD to Congress despite legal requirements for him to do so. By not following a statutory requirement to submit these EXORDs to Congress, Secretary Hegseth and the President are breaking the law. On September 2, the U.S. military carried out its first strike, killing 11 individuals on an alleged drug boat. Additional strikes continued throughout the fall and winter, and to date, the U.S. military has conducted 35 known strikes, killing at least 120 people. President Trump tries to justify these lethal attacks by creating a new term--``designated terrorist organization''--a term that does not exist in U.S. law or anywhere else, so far as we have been able to determine. What does exist in law--authorized by Congress--is the ``foreign terrorist organization'' designation, which authorizes legal and economic sanctions. In other words, designating a cartel as a foreign terrorist organization limits that group's financial, property, and travel interests. It does not authorize lethal military action. We have searched high and low for a designation authorized by Congress of a group that would automatically allow lethal action, and we have not found it. Congress is still waiting for the President to publicly release the legal opinion underlying these legal actions preceding the recent operation in Venezuela, Operation Absolute Resolve. They have not done so yet, although they have released the latest legal opinion. Even more troubling is that, in the process of conducting these strikes on the alleged drug boats, the JAGs--the judge advocates general--who had to opine on the legality, did not have access to this controlling legal opinion by the Department of Justice. They didn't get access to it until November, which was long after many of these strikes took place. The legal foundation for this campaign and the operations that President Trump engaged in became extraordinarily tenuous during the September 2 strike. According to numerous public reports, after the initial attack, two survivors were left floating on the wreckage of their boat, miles from land. The United States had complete control of the skies and waters for miles around. Yet, after monitoring these survivors on video for the better part of an hour or at least 40-some- odd minutes, the order was given to fire lethal rounds at these survivors. Even if one accepts the President's determination that we are in an armed conflict with cartels, the Geneva Conventions still apply. Article 12 of the second Geneva Convention defines ``shipwrecked'' persons as those ``in peril at sea or in other waters from any cause.'' The U.S. Navy's ``Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations'' makes clear that ``following each naval engagement at sea, belligerents are obligated to take all possible measures to search for and rescue the shipwrecked.'' The Department of Defense's ``Law of War Manual'' states that members of the Armed Forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders, including law of war violations. It even provides a definition and an example to avoid confusion: For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. That is our law. That is the manual of the Department of Defense. The administration has released a video of all of these attacks except this one, and I think it would be helpful to the public--to all of us--to make that video available. As we all know, on January 3, this campaign reached a climax. U.S. forces conducted airstrikes to neutralize anti-aircraft systems, carried out cyber operations to shut down power in Caracas, and executed a helicopter assault on the Presidential compound to seize Maduro and his wife. The tactical success of this mission is a testament to their capabilities and also to the incredible courage and quality of the men and women of our Armed Forces. However, military skill is not the same as strategic wisdom. Executing a successful raid does not constitute a plan for governing a nation. Indeed, alleviating the plight and misery of the Venezuelan people appears nowhere in the administration's stated plans for the future of Venezuela. Instead, President Trump announced that the U.S. was ``going to run the country'' and seize control of Venezuelan oil production. He stated that ``we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to.'' So the possibility of hostilities certainly still exists in the President's mind, and he expects to be involved in Venezuela for years to come. This is not really a plan; it is an aspiration. Even the experts in the oil industry suggest that it is not one that is feasible at this moment. Under international law, the raid on January 3 violates article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The United States is bound by treaty to follow the U.N. Charter. The Constitution makes treaties part of the ``supreme law of the land,'' and the President is bound by his oath to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. The administration, however, seems to have determined that it can ignore the supreme law of the land because it claims it was simply enforcing the law. That is wrong and cynical, and we are in a situation where the President continues to assert that we can use hostilities at any time. In fact, on January 9, he said, ``We are not afraid of boots on the ground.'' Let me, for a moment, point out another great hypocrisy that has arisen in this situation. This all began as a way to prevent drugs from reaching this country and affecting families throughout this country. The President was standing up and down, spouting about how he has gotten rid of fentanyl. Of course, fentanyl does not come out of this area of the world. But this is one of the interesting things that happened just last night: President Trump canceled $2 billion in grants for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. These were grants intended to fund overdose prevention work in communities, to provide lifesaving reversal drugs, and to fund treatment for people with opioid addiction. These are the very programs that put people on a path toward long-term recovery to avoid deaths through drugs. The Trump administration is prepared to commit billions of dollars to attack Venezuela but will take it from those people who are suffering from drug addiction in the United States. It is our duty to ensure that the United States engages in armed conflict only after having the approval of Congress. This body has had every opportunity up until now to demand accountability, and too many of us have refused. The President has flouted the law, and we have failed in our duty to correct it. So we must, I think, vote for this resolution. It is our responsibility. It is the oath we took, and it is the oath, tonight, that we must follow. I yield the floor.

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, for 4 months, my Democratic colleagues and I have come to the floor to warn against President Trump's military operations in South and Central America. We pointed out that his boat- strike campaign was strategically incoherent, legally questionable, and, ultimately, not about narcotrafficking at all. We have argued that the administration's shifting legal justifications, refusal to give Congress straight answers, and, in particular, the failure of the Department of Defense to provide information to Congress, which is required by law--all of these things--together with a massive military buildup, pointed toward something larger than narcotrafficking. Indeed, we warned that these actions were always directed at the government and economy of Venezuela. That campaign has now culminated in a military raid on Caracas, the capture of Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and President Trump's extraordinary declaration that the United States will ``run'' Venezuela and seize control of its oil reserves. Let me be very clear about something, at the outset: Nicolas Maduro is a brutal dictator who has destroyed Venezuela's economy, crushed democratic opposition, and fostered widespread corruption. He will not be missed. But this operation was not designed to restore peace in Venezuela or protect America from the ravages of drugs. Indeed, this operation is not about democracy. It is not about the suffering of the Venezuelan people. It is not even about narcotrafficking, despite the administration's killing more than 100 people in its strikes on alleged drug boats. In the President's own words, this campaign is simply about seizing Venezuela's oil and profiting from it. The people of Venezuela have suffered extraordinary hardship under the Maduro regime. They have voted in multiple elections for new leadership and have been denied their choice through fraud and repression. After everything they have endured, the people of Venezuela deserve to choose what happens next in their country. They do not deserve to have their future dictated by President Trump, Secretary Rubio, or anyone else in Washington. Yet that is precisely what this administration plans to do. The plan presented by the White House is to simply force the remnants of the Maduro regime to grant the United States exclusive access to Venezuelan oil or face the consequences of a blockade. That is it. That is the plan. Not in the plan: positive change for the people of Venezuela. There is no framework for elections or democratic transition, no serious assessment of the rival political factions inside Venezuela--factions that have been waiting for precisely this moment to seize power. I have seen no contingency plan for what happens when China, Russia, Iran, or Cuba--nations with deep economic interests in Venezuela-- decide to block or back proxy groups in a country we have just destabilized, nor have I heard any proposal for the next steps for countering narcotrafficking. The administration's goals are aspirational at best, and aspirations are not enough when the stakes involve war and the future of millions of people. One of the first lessons I learned as an Army officer is that hope is not a plan. Over my career, both in uniform and in the Congress, I have seen the United States hope that its military interventions abroad would succeed. I have seen regime changes, nation-building efforts, and elaborate reconstruction schemes launched with confident predictions of success, only to have them collapse when encountered with the reality on the ground. And the reality is this: When we rely on the U.S. military as our primary tool of foreign engagement, we generally set ourselves up for failure. We have persistently misunderstood and misjudged the cultures, histories, and politics of the nations in which we have intervened because we assume military might is enough. We imagine outcomes that align with our military and economic objectives but are surprised when those outcomes fail. We consistently fail to plan for the ``day after.'' Unless the Trump administration gets serious, Venezuela will be no exception. This isn't about our military capabilities. We have the most formidable fighting force the world has ever seen, and I am proud and, frankly, not surprised that all elements of our military worked together to successfully execute such a dangerous and difficult mission in Caracas. The skill, professionalism, and courage are beyond question of these men and women. But military capability is not the same as strategic wisdom. The ability to achieve tactical objectives does not guarantee beneficial long-term outcomes, and executing a successful raid does not constitute a plan for governing a nation of 28 million people. Congress exists to provide oversight and scrutiny of the executive branch, not to cheer from the sidelines. I commend our servicemen for their performance last weekend, but I am deeply concerned about the Trump administration's lack of serious planning for the next phase. That is why this War Powers Resolution is necessary. The Constitution vests the power to authorize war in Congress, not the President. President Trump has claimed this was just a law enforcement mission. That is absurd. No matter how he describes it, the President waged war on a foreign nation without authorization, without notification to Congress, and without any explanation to the American people about what this operation will cost or what success will look like. This is a profound constitutional failure, and it must be corrected. I hope I am wrong about these dangers ahead. I hope this administration is right, and the transition in Venezuela proceeds smoothly. I hope that the Venezuelan people embrace this outcome and see their lives improve quickly. I hope the violent factions in Venezuela choose peace over conflict. I hope the economic recovery for the people of Venezuela justifies this enormous gamble. But as I said before, hope is not enough, and history suggests we should prepare for a far more difficult reality. The question before us is whether Congress will fulfill its constitutional duty or whether we will abdicate our responsibility and allow this President to commit American military resources, credibility, and, potentially, American lives to an open-ended entanglement without authorization or accountability. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 439, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 273, David Wright, of South Carolina, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Blumenthal, and Gillibrand, in introducing the Buy Now, Pay Later Protection Act. This bill will extend key consumer protections for traditional credit cards to ``buy now, pay later,'' BNPL, loans. These include standardized disclosures, periodic account statements, chargeback rights, billing error rights, and a prohibition on surprise fees. The typical ``pay-in-four'' BNPL loan allows consumers to purchase a product and then pay back the loan over four equal installments, with the first installment akin to a downpayment. BNPL typically does not charge interest, but it does charge late fees. The lenders make their money primarily by charging merchants. When BNPL is offered as an option at check-out, consumers are more likely to complete a purchase and tend to spend more money. In the mid-2010s, BNPL became a popular alternative to credit cards for online retail purchases, particularly among younger consumers. Its popularity soared during the pandemic, as more consumers turned to online shopping. Growth since then has been explosive. According to data from the CFPB and Adobe Analytics, BNPL credit totaled an estimated $2 billion in 2019 and is expected to be around $120 billion this year. Around 15 percent of Americans have used BNPL in the past year--that's is around 90 million people. When used responsibly, BNPL can be an important source of credit for those who are weary of credit cards. If they are well-designed, transparent, accountable, and supervised, BNPL products can legitimately help these Americans meet their need for credit. In fact, the typical BNPL user is a lower income borrower who wants to spread out payments over time without incurring interest. Given the huge growth in this market in only a few short years, it is critical to review when the laws governing these products must be updated. It should be uncontroversial for BNPL borrowers to receive many of the basic protections that credit card holders currently have, but they currently lack any of these protections because existing laws were not drafted with BNPL products in mind. This has resulted in gaps and uncertainty for BNPL users. The commonsense protections in the BNPL Protection Act include clear information on due dates, fees, and how to dispute charges. The bill requires BNPL lenders to issue periodic account statements. It provides consumers with a right to seek a chargeback when they are victims of fraud or deception, so that they don't keep getting charged if they don't get what they paid for. They also prohibit the credit reporting bureaus and debt collectors from going after a consumer when they dispute a transaction, so that borrowers are not penalized or harassed into repaying debt they may not owe. The CFPB had these protections in place until the current Acting Director rescinded them earlier this year. These protections are crucial now because BNPL delinquencies and defaults have been on the rise. Nearly 25 percent of BNPL users made late payments, which is a sharp increase over prior years, in many cases resulting in significant late fees even on relatively small- dollar loans. BNPL users do seem to be struggling to an even greater degree than credit card holders. According to Bloomberg, 43 percent of those who owe money to BNPL services said they were behind on payments, and 28 percent said they were delinquent on other debt because of BNPL spending. Indeed, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that ``a disproportionate share of BNPL users are already financially fragile'' and that while BNPL may deliver benefits to lower income consumers, ``BNPL may attract consumers who already have financial difficulties and are struggling to pay their existing bills and debt payments.'' In short, this bill will preserve the availability of BNPL credit while helping consumers avoid hidden fees, better manage their finances, and have more transparency into the terms and conditions of their loans. It will clarify the regulatory status of BNPL loans to match how consumers are using this new product. Finally, this bill will require the CFPB to begin supervising BNPL providers in order to spot violations before they snowball. BNPL providers are not currently subject to compulsory Federal supervision by the CFPB. Rather, they may be subject to supervision only by the States in which they do business. Some States require registration and conduct examinations, while others do not. This system may allow potential violations of consumer protection laws to fall through the cracks, leaving consumers exposed to harm and limiting accountability for BNPL providers who don't play by the rules. I thank the supporters of this legislation, including the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, Americans for Financial Reform, and the Consumer Federation of America. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Blumenthal, and Gillibrand, in introducing the Buy Now, Pay Later Protection Act. This bill will extend key consumer protections for traditional credit cards to ``buy now, pay later,'' BNPL, loans. These include standardized disclosures, periodic account statements, chargeback rights, billing error rights, and a prohibition on surprise fees. The typical ``pay-in-four'' BNPL loan allows consumers to purchase a product and then pay back the loan over four equal installments, with the first installment akin to a downpayment. BNPL typically does not charge interest, but it does charge late fees. The lenders make their money primarily by charging merchants. When BNPL is offered as an option at check-out, consumers are more likely to complete a purchase and tend to spend more money. In the mid-2010s, BNPL became a popular alternative to credit cards for online retail purchases, particularly among younger consumers. Its popularity soared during the pandemic, as more consumers turned to online shopping. Growth since then has been explosive. According to data from the CFPB and Adobe Analytics, BNPL credit totaled an estimated $2 billion in 2019 and is expected to be around $120 billion this year. Around 15 percent of Americans have used BNPL in the past year--that's is around 90 million people. When used responsibly, BNPL can be an important source of credit for those who are weary of credit cards. If they are well-designed, transparent, accountable, and supervised, BNPL products can legitimately help these Americans meet their need for credit. In fact, the typical BNPL user is a lower income borrower who wants to spread out payments over time without incurring interest. Given the huge growth in this market in only a few short years, it is critical to review when the laws governing these products must be updated. It should be uncontroversial for BNPL borrowers to receive many of the basic protections that credit card holders currently have, but they currently lack any of these protections because existing laws were not drafted with BNPL products in mind. This has resulted in gaps and uncertainty for BNPL users. The commonsense protections in the BNPL Protection Act include clear information on due dates, fees, and how to dispute charges. The bill requires BNPL lenders to issue periodic account statements. It provides consumers with a right to seek a chargeback when they are victims of fraud or deception, so that they don't keep getting charged if they don't get what they paid for. They also prohibit the credit reporting bureaus and debt collectors from going after a consumer when they dispute a transaction, so that borrowers are not penalized or harassed into repaying debt they may not owe. The CFPB had these protections in place until the current Acting Director rescinded them earlier this year. These protections are crucial now because BNPL delinquencies and defaults have been on the rise. Nearly 25 percent of BNPL users made late payments, which is a sharp increase over prior years, in many cases resulting in significant late fees even on relatively small- dollar loans. BNPL users do seem to be struggling to an even greater degree than credit card holders. According to Bloomberg, 43 percent of those who owe money to BNPL services said they were behind on payments, and 28 percent said they were delinquent on other debt because of BNPL spending. Indeed, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that ``a disproportionate share of BNPL users are already financially fragile'' and that while BNPL may deliver benefits to lower income consumers, ``BNPL may attract consumers who already have financial difficulties and are struggling to pay their existing bills and debt payments.'' In short, this bill will preserve the availability of BNPL credit while helping consumers avoid hidden fees, better manage their finances, and have more transparency into the terms and conditions of their loans. It will clarify the regulatory status of BNPL loans to match how consumers are using this new product. Finally, this bill will require the CFPB to begin supervising BNPL providers in order to spot violations before they snowball. BNPL providers are not currently subject to compulsory Federal supervision by the CFPB. Rather, they may be subject to supervision only by the States in which they do business. Some States require registration and conduct examinations, while others do not. This system may allow potential violations of consumer protection laws to fall through the cracks, leaving consumers exposed to harm and limiting accountability for BNPL providers who don't play by the rules. I thank the supporters of this legislation, including the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, Americans for Financial Reform, and the Consumer Federation of America. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Charles ``Charlie'' Kelley, executive director of the Rhode Island Student Loan Authority, RISLA, on his upcoming retirement and to thank him for his 34 years of service to students, families, and educators across Rhode Island and the U.S. Throughout his career, Charlie's north star has been ensuring that students and families have affordable, safe options to finance postsecondary education. Charlie joined RISLA in 1991 as deputy director and quickly advanced to become executive director. He has guided RISLA through the changing and complex landscape of student lending. He expanded RISLA's services to include financial support for student internship programs, employer-based student loan repayment programs, and targeted loan forgiveness programs to meet critical workforce needs in Rhode Island. Charlie was the driving force behind RISLA's College Planning Center, which has become Rhode Island's leading college planning agency. For the past two decades, the College Planning Center has provided free guidance to students and families navigating complicated and unfamiliar financial decisions. It has helped students file the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, understand their financial aid award letters, and select the college that is right for them. I know firsthand how effective the College Planning Center is because it has helped me and my family. Another innovation Charlie helped establish is Financial Aid Nights, which we host together each year to give college-bound students and families the chance to learn firsthand from financial aid experts and connect with resources to help them plan for and finance college. Charlie's impact goes beyond Rhode Island, as his influence can be seen throughout the Federal student aid community. He brought his expertise and advocacy for college affordability to the national level, where he served as a member and chairman of the Education Finance Council Board of Directors. During his time there, Charlie advanced the council's mission of making postsecondary education more accessible and encouraging responsible borrowing. Nobody understands better than Charlie that higher education should be within reach of students regardless of their financial means. I thank him for his unwavering dedication to families in Rhode Island and around the country. Because of the foundation Charlie has built, RISLA will continue to thrive and serve generations of Rhode Islanders to come. I join so many of Charlie's colleagues and peers in thanking him for his friendship and kindness and in wishing him a happy and healthy retirement in the company of his wife Leslie; children Andrew and Caroline; and granddaughter Zoe. He has earned it.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, we are about to consider the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. I rise to express my support for this legislation, and I am very pleased that we will, I think very shortly, be voting on final passage of this bill. First, I would like to acknowledge Chairman Wicker whose leadership has been crucial for the success of this bill. The hallmark of the Senate Armed Services Committee has long been bipartisanship, and I am glad we have continued that tradition for the 65th consecutive year. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee who helped produce this bill. We were able to adopt hundreds of amendments during the committee markup and dozens more through the floor process and floor debate. I appreciate our colleagues in the House who worked with us these past months to produce a strong bipartisan bill. This is a forward-looking Defense bill, and I believe we can all support it. I am confident it will provide the Department of Defense and our military men and women with the resources they need to meet and overcome the national security threats we face. This year's Defense bill addresses strategic competition with China and Russia and confronts threats posed by Iran, North Korea, violent extremists, and also national phenomena like climate change. It authorizes significant investments in artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, and hypersonics, and it modernizes our ships, our aircraft, and our combat vehicles. Most importantly, this NDAA delivers key wins for our servicemembers and their families. It authorizes a 3.8-percent pay raise and provides improved housing, barracks, additional childcare assistance, and expanded programs to address traumatic brain injuries because we understand that the key asset that we have that provides our military superiority is the men and women in the uniform of the United States. This bill reaffirms America's global role by extending the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and committing the Department of Defense to continue to support Ukraine. They are fighting our fight, and we must help them. It strengthens our alliances in Asia by fully funding the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and providing new authorities for cooperation with Taiwan. Importantly, the bill prohibits reductions in our force posture in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. To remain a force for peace and stability in these areas, we must have effective force levels, and this legislation provides for that. And importantly, this NDAA compels the Secretary of Defense to follow the law and submit to Congress a number of reports that he has deliberately withheld. Specifically, the bill cuts off portions of the Secretary of Defense budget until he submits the execute orders and unedited videos of the boat strikes related to ongoing operations in South and Central America. The bill asserts congressional authority over several other areas the Secretary has been negligent in. These provisions are a ratification of our constitutional duty to raise an army, to supervise an army, and to ensure that the laws of the United States are followed scrupulously. Overall, this is a very strong bill that represents compromise on both sides, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for it. Finally, I would like to take an opportunity to recognize the phenomenal staff who have made this bill possible. I want to specifically recognize the director of the Democratic staff Elizabeth King and the director of the Republican staff John Keast. They have led their staffs and worked together with utmost professionalism. I would also like to thank the members of the Armed Services Committee staff that have helped me directly: Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jenny Davis, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Kevin Gates, Creighton Greene, Gary Leeling, Maggie McNamara Cooper, Mike Noblet, Chad Johnson, John Quirk, Andy Scott, Cole Stevens, Meredith Werner, Isabelle Picciotti, Brittany Amador, Sofia Kamali, and Noah Sisk. Also, let me thank the floor staff and the leadership staff. You have been part of this process for the last several months, and you have done a remarkable job. We thank you for that very, very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am here with Senator Whitehouse and Senator Britt from Alabama to recognize the victims of a terrible, heartbreaking mass shooting that took place at Brown University in Providence over the weekend. Two young people were killed and nine were wounded when a gunman opened fire on a classroom full of college students studying for their final. We will mourn the victims at a later date, but we will soon, all of us, humbly request a moment of silence for sophomore Ella Cook of Alabama and freshman Mukhammad Aziz Umurzokov of Virginia. These two talented, promising young people had their lives tragically cut short. We are thinking of them and all the victims and to the broader Brown University community. We send our love and support to their families and loved ones. They are dealing with the unimaginable, and we will continue to support them. Before I ask us to observe a moment of silence, I would like to turn to my colleagues for some brief remarks. I yield the floor to Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, again, we will have more time to speak about these young people, but for now, I would request a moment of silence for the Brown University community, the city of Providence, and all of the victims of these tragic events, particularly the families of Ella and Mukhammad. (Moment of silence.)

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the clock is ticking. In a matter of days, 24 million Americans will see their health insurance premiums double or triple. Since August and even earlier, Democrats have been imploring Republicans to do the right thing and extend the healthcare tax credits that will make health insurance affordable. For months, Republicans dawdled and dithered. Finally, last night, at the eleventh hour, they came up with an unworkable, partisan plan that cuts more money out of Medicaid, penalizes women who need reproductive health care, and introduces an almost Darwinian system that gives people a finite amount of money to pay for routine healthcare and little more coverage if they get seriously ill and need costly treatment. Their plan will not work. More than that, there is no time to implement it. The solution is simple: Extend the existing tax credits. If there are additional bipartisan reforms to reduce costs--and I believe there are--let's continue to work on them once we have adopted the extension because if we don't pass this bill, we know what will happen: The insurance Marketplace will falter, and costs will get higher for everyone--everyone--not just those who lose the tax credit, but as more money comes out of the system, the insurance companies will charge higher rates for everyone. Indeed, too often, when health insurance premiums soar, people who used to be able to afford health insurance will end up forgoing it altogether. They will still get sick, and the cost they can pay will be absorbed by others, perhaps. In my State of Rhode Island, 13,000 people are expected to drop coverage because of the Republicans' failure to extend the healthcare tax credits. That is 13,000 people saying: I give up. I can't afford to buy health insurance. I will take my chances and go to the ER if something happens. People who are relatively healthy may just roll the dice and hope they won't need healthcare next year. Other people--people who are sick and really need the stability of health insurance--have no choice. They will pay the increased premiums and will suffer the consequences of that, cutting back on other necessities--food, utilities, housing. Some will fall into poverty. During this holiday season, we can do something. By simply extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits, we can ensure that millions of working people can afford their health insurance across this country. That is what I will be voting to do shortly, along with many of my colleagues. Democrats have put forth a proposal that would extend these vital tax credits for the next 3 years, guaranteeing lower healthcare costs, lower premiums, for millions of Americans. Yesterday--like a student who writes a term paper the night before it is due--Senate Republicans finally unveiled their proposal. It is highly flawed and partisan, as I have said. But I must give Senators Cassidy and Crapo credit for at least acknowledging that this is a serious issue for American families because it has been evident that the President, the Speaker of the House, and many other colleagues on the other side of the aisle would simply prefer to do nothing to address the triple-digit premium increases taking effect starting this January. Why do I say that? Because my Democratic colleagues and I have been asking our Republican colleagues for months to join us to extend the tax credits, but they have declined. In fact, congressional Republicans could have extended the tax credits or their own plan on healthcare costs as a part of their massive $4.5 trillion tax bill earlier this year. But in all the giveaways in that bill, they could not find a dime to address the healthcare costs facing working Americans. Instead, they were prepared to let health insurance premiums double for working families throughout the country. Many of my Republican colleagues who oppose the credit say people should have more choice over their healthcare options and more skin in the game. What they don't acknowledge is that the ACA tax credits empower people to choose health insurance policies that they know will meet their needs today and will cover them if and when they need coverage for an emergency or for a chronic condition. Health savings accounts and the cut-rate policy Republicans want may be OK when you are healthy, but they won't help keep families out of poverty when they face a real healthcare crisis. What will keep families out of poverty? The ACA tax credits. We cannot allow them to expire. I have already heard from my constituents about it, what it means to them, as I am sure every Member of this Senate has. Jeffrey from Westerly, RI, wrote this to me: I am a retiree on a fixed income purchasing my health insurance through HealthSourceRI. Today, I received a letter in the mail from the State of Rhode Island outlining the shocking details comparing my 2025 medical insurance costs with those projected for 2026. To give context, my current health insurance plan for my wife and I costs $1,181.86 per month, and after Advance Premium Tax Credits-- The tax credits we are talking about in our legislation-- of $896.58, we pay $285.28. The health insurance plan I have is projected to increase to $1,505.47 in 2026, for a 27.4% increase!! That in and of itself seems unconscionable with inflation running about 3% currently. However, the real kicker is that my tax credits are expected to expire and [will] be $0 for 2026, which in real terms to me means that my health insurance monthly costs will skyrocket from $285.28 to $1,505.47, for a whopping increase of 428%!!! Nino from Wakefield, RI, similarly said: I just got my estimated charges for healthcare in 2026 from HealthSourceRI. By the way, that is our ACA exchange in Rhode Island. My cost is going up by over 300%!!! I can't image how many of the 24 million Americans with ACA healthcare exchanges will lose their healthcare if the subsidies are not reinstated! Leigh wrote to me saying: [M]y insurance rates will climb on the marketplace from $773 to over $1300 and will be unaffordable. Without health insurance, I will die. I live with rare diseases that pose life threatening effects on a daily basis. We have no spare funds for an increase in our health insurance. This administration is trying to take away the only thing that is keeping me alive. I am a productive member of society. I am a defense contractor, I am a graduate student. I am a dog mom. I am a neighbor, friend, and community advocate. I matter. Please fight for me. Don't stop fighting for my ability to have health insurance and stay alive. If I go more than 3 days without meds, I can end up in the ER with a stroke. I need my job to afford meds. I need health insurance to be able to work. I need a graduate degree to keep my job. I'm supposed to graduate in [December] 2025 with a masters in system engineering. I need a car to get to school to get to my degree. I need meds to drive my car. Those are real Americans, working Americans--contributing in this case to our national security. Without the tax credits, this young lady believes that she will probably die. These are real people. They are facing impossible decisions about their healthcare. And it is not just happening in Rhode Island; there are people like Jeffrey, Nino, and Leigh in every State. The tough choices they are facing are entirely avoidable. The bill we are going to vote on will do just what is needed--prevent these drastic increases in healthcare costs, extend the tax credits, and provide certainty to everyone shopping for healthcare right now. The more people we get insured, the better it is for everyone. Costs go down. When only the sickest people sign up for healthcare, the insurance companies have to cover the cost, so prices go up. It destabilizes the entire healthcare system. So this is not only bad policy directed at people who participate in the Affordable Care Act; this is bad policy for an entire healthcare insurance system. What is more is that when people have healthcare insurance, they go to the doctor; they get preventive care; they get things checked out before it is an emergency. And an emergency is typically much more expensive. It would mean fewer people showing up at the emergency rooms for preventable healthcare crises. It means people could live healthier, longer, and work, be more productive, taxpaying members of our society. I urge my colleagues to extend the tax credits and keep 24 million Americans from seeing their premiums double and 5 million Americans from losing their healthcare in the coming weeks. It is the right thing to do. It is economically a very effective and efficient thing to do. And I can't think of anything more in keeping with the morality of helping our fellow Americans than allowing these people to continue with their health insurance. I yield the floor.

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, today, I am introducing the Building Resilience and Stronger Communities Act, along with Senator Murkowski of Alaska. Our bipartisan bill would reinstate the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, BRIC Program at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and protect it against elimination in the future. It would also make it easier for smaller communities to access funding by increasing the Federal cost-share for small projects and for projects that protect critical facilities, and it would ensure that Tribes will be able to access funding under the program. Established by Congress in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act and signed into law by President Trump in 2018, BRIC serves as FEMA's primary predisaster mitigation program. Since 2020, FEMA has awarded more than $4.5 billion in BRIC funding to help communities across the country strengthen their resilience efforts. Through BRIC, local governments have been able to carry out essential projects such as elevating at-risk infrastructure, reinforcing bridges, or improving drainage systems. These projects not only protect vital infrastructure and in turn, homes and businesses but also create jobs and ensure that communities can continue to function in the aftermath of natural disasters. Rather than waiting for costly recovery efforts after a disaster, the BRIC Program helps communities prepare in advance--reducing disaster impacts, promoting long-term safety, and saving taxpayer dollars through proactive investment. Indeed, various studies have found that for every $1 spent on resilience and preparedness, communities save between $13 and $18 in damages, cleanup costs, and economic impact. Despite the BRIC Program's demonstrated benefits under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Trump administration abruptly canceled the program in April 2025, claiming it was ``wasteful and ineffective.'' Regrettably, FEMA did not take steps to improve the program or reinstate funding. Our bill addresses these issues by reestablishing the program, opening it to a broader array of mitigation projects in smaller and Tribal communities, and making it easier to access funds to protect critical facilities--including healthcare facilities, police and fire stations, schools, and power stations. These are commonsense reforms that will help improve BRIC and save taxpayers billions of dollars in disaster recovery payments in the future. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Building Resilience and Stronger Communities Act, along with Senator Murkowski of Alaska. Our bipartisan bill would reinstate the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, BRIC Program at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and protect it against elimination in the future. It would also make it easier for smaller communities to access funding by increasing the Federal cost-share for small projects and for projects that protect critical facilities, and it would ensure that Tribes will be able to access funding under the program. Established by Congress in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act and signed into law by President Trump in 2018, BRIC serves as FEMA's primary predisaster mitigation program. Since 2020, FEMA has awarded more than $4.5 billion in BRIC funding to help communities across the country strengthen their resilience efforts. Through BRIC, local governments have been able to carry out essential projects such as elevating at-risk infrastructure, reinforcing bridges, or improving drainage systems. These projects not only protect vital infrastructure and in turn, homes and businesses but also create jobs and ensure that communities can continue to function in the aftermath of natural disasters. Rather than waiting for costly recovery efforts after a disaster, the BRIC Program helps communities prepare in advance--reducing disaster impacts, promoting long-term safety, and saving taxpayer dollars through proactive investment. Indeed, various studies have found that for every $1 spent on resilience and preparedness, communities save between $13 and $18 in damages, cleanup costs, and economic impact. Despite the BRIC Program's demonstrated benefits under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Trump administration abruptly canceled the program in April 2025, claiming it was ``wasteful and ineffective.'' Regrettably, FEMA did not take steps to improve the program or reinstate funding. Our bill addresses these issues by reestablishing the program, opening it to a broader array of mitigation projects in smaller and Tribal communities, and making it easier to access funds to protect critical facilities--including healthcare facilities, police and fire stations, schools, and power stations. These are commonsense reforms that will help improve BRIC and save taxpayers billions of dollars in disaster recovery payments in the future. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, literacy opens the door for lifelong opportunity and economic success. Yet, the long-term trend in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, shows continued declines in reading scores with record-low percentages of students reporting regularly reading for fun outside of school. We need urgent action to ensure that all children have the means and the right to read. That is why I am pleased to join Representative Adelita Grijalva and Senators Schatz, Hirono, Durbin, King, Whitehouse, and Wyden in introducing the Right to Read Act. The Right to Read Act leverages the tools that will make our students strong, lifelong readers. It requires States and school districts to have policies protecting the right to read, which includes access to evidence-based reading instruction; access to effective school libraries; access to developmentally and linguistically appropriate materials--including at home; family literacy support; and the freedom to choose reading materials. Research consistently shows that investing in school libraries and school librarians improves literacy outcomes, with the connection between high-quality school library programs and student achievement being particularly pronounced for the most vulnerable learners. But not every student has access to library services. In 2020 to 2021, the first full school year after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, 29.5 percent of schools reported not having a full- or part-time librarian, an increase from 25.4 percent in 2015 to 2016. Schools with high percentages of economically disadvantaged and minority students were even less likely to have access to certified librarians. Moreover, school libraries are most effective when they offer resources that resonate, engage, and empower students and that align with their first amendment rights. Too many students are subject to ill-conceived book bans. During the 2024 to 2025 school year, PEN America recorded 6,870 instances of book bans across 23 States. Many of the banned titles address issues of racial, ethnic, or gender identity. The Right to Read Act addresses the disparities in access to school library resources, ensuring that low-income, minority children, English learners, and students with disabilities are not disproportionately enrolled in schools that lack effective school libraries. It supports the development of effective school libraries, including the recruitment, retention, and professional development of State-certified school librarians. It will also increase the Federal investment in literacy by reauthorizing comprehensive literacy state development grants at $500 million and the Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program at $100 million, targeting critical literacy resources in high- need communities. Importantly, the bill protects access to quality reading materials and provides the resources needed to create a foundation for learning and student success. In developing this legislation, Representative Grijalva and I worked closely with the library community, including the American Library Association and the American Association of School Librarians. We are also pleased to have the support of the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the National Council of Teachers of English, PEN America, and Reach Out and Read. These are the experts in helping kids become lifelong readers and learners. I appreciate their insight and assistance on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation to ensure that all students have a right to read.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, literacy opens the door for lifelong opportunity and economic success. Yet, the long-term trend in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, shows continued declines in reading scores with record-low percentages of students reporting regularly reading for fun outside of school. We need urgent action to ensure that all children have the means and the right to read. That is why I am pleased to join Representative Adelita Grijalva and Senators Schatz, Hirono, Durbin, King, Whitehouse, and Wyden in introducing the Right to Read Act. The Right to Read Act leverages the tools that will make our students strong, lifelong readers. It requires States and school districts to have policies protecting the right to read, which includes access to evidence-based reading instruction; access to effective school libraries; access to developmentally and linguistically appropriate materials--including at home; family literacy support; and the freedom to choose reading materials. Research consistently shows that investing in school libraries and school librarians improves literacy outcomes, with the connection between high-quality school library programs and student achievement being particularly pronounced for the most vulnerable learners. But not every student has access to library services. In 2020 to 2021, the first full school year after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, 29.5 percent of schools reported not having a full- or part-time librarian, an increase from 25.4 percent in 2015 to 2016. Schools with high percentages of economically disadvantaged and minority students were even less likely to have access to certified librarians. Moreover, school libraries are most effective when they offer resources that resonate, engage, and empower students and that align with their first amendment rights. Too many students are subject to ill-conceived book bans. During the 2024 to 2025 school year, PEN America recorded 6,870 instances of book bans across 23 States. Many of the banned titles address issues of racial, ethnic, or gender identity. The Right to Read Act addresses the disparities in access to school library resources, ensuring that low-income, minority children, English learners, and students with disabilities are not disproportionately enrolled in schools that lack effective school libraries. It supports the development of effective school libraries, including the recruitment, retention, and professional development of State-certified school librarians. It will also increase the Federal investment in literacy by reauthorizing comprehensive literacy state development grants at $500 million and the Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program at $100 million, targeting critical literacy resources in high- need communities. Importantly, the bill protects access to quality reading materials and provides the resources needed to create a foundation for learning and student success. In developing this legislation, Representative Grijalva and I worked closely with the library community, including the American Library Association and the American Association of School Librarians. We are also pleased to have the support of the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the National Council of Teachers of English, PEN America, and Reach Out and Read. These are the experts in helping kids become lifelong readers and learners. I appreciate their insight and assistance on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation to ensure that all students have a right to read.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter of grave concern regarding the Trump administration's military operations in South and Central America and specifically the September 2 strike on a suspected drug vessel that has now been the subject of deeply troubling press reporting. The facts as we understand them are these: On September 2, U.S. forces conducted a strike on a vessel in the Caribbean. From his own public statements, we know that Secretary Hegseth authorized and oversaw the strike. According to press reports, the initial strike left survivors in the water, clinging to the wreckage. Then U.S. forces carried out a second strike on the vessel, which killed the survivors. Initially, as he often does, the Secretary of Defense and his office denied the reporting when it broke last weekend. But then, on Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that, in fact, Secretary Hegseth did authorize these strikes and that Admiral Bradley, the operational commander, did order a second strike. The White House has admitted what the Secretary denied, and we cannot ignore what that means. The Department of Defense's Law of War Manual states that members of the Armed Forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders, including law of war violations. It even provides a definition and an example to avoid confusion: For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. This is not a complex legal theory. This is not a gray area. The manual addresses this exact situation with crystal clarity. Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked are clearly illegal, and this principle has been long ingrained in the Department of Defense and the Navy. Multiple legal experts, including former Judge Advocates General, have stated that if this reporting is accurate, this strike appears to constitute a war crime. Indeed, many of my Republican colleagues have joined Democrats in recognizing that the reported facts of this strike would be clearly illegal. Yet, in his own words yesterday, the Secretary of Defense claimed that the second strike was the ``correct decision.'' This by itself is an alarming admission. But I am, frankly, not surprised by the Secretary's statements. For years, he has expressed contempt for the law of armed conflict and has championed servicemembers convicted of war crimes. During the first Trump administration, he lobbied for the pardoning of several military personnel who were turned in by their own teammates for war crimes as well as military contractors convicted of killing 14 Iraqi civilians. He has also called for reinstating waterboarding and other forms of torture. In his book ``The War on Warriors,'' he wrote: Should we follow the Geneva Conventions?. . . . If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules? Since then, Secretary Hegseth has acted exactly how we might expect. In October, at Quantico, he told hundreds of generals and admirals: Don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters. He then gave them an ultimatum: If the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign. Secretary Hegseth demands military leaders conform to his interpretation of the law or be dismissed. This is profoundly dangerous. It contradicts the ethic and the ethos of the American military that is sworn to uphold the Constitution, sworn to obey the laws of armed conflict. That dedication is to ensure that when our personnel are disabled in the water, when they are prisoners of war, they are treated with the legal requirements of the Geneva Convention and of other legal constraints. If we kill people with impunity, how can we object to the same behavior from our opponents? Now, when he first came to the Department of Defense, he dismissed the Judge Advocates General of each service--the TJAGs. These are officers with more than 30 years of apolitical service providing legal oversight on military justice, operational law, and adherence to the law of armed conflict. Without these decades of military experience, the services seem to be losing their way and not supporting the men and women in uniform as these men and women deserve. When this latest story came to light, the Secretary immediately began pointing the finger at others. He and the White House have repeatedly attempted to place responsibility for the September 2 strike squarely on Admiral Bradley's shoulders. I served in the Army on Active Duty for 12 years, and one of the first and most important lessons I learned is that a military leader can delegate authority, but you can never delegate responsibility. You give the orders. You own the results. Every officer knows this, but Secretary Hegseth is once again giving orders and rejecting responsibility when bad results come in. I can guarantee that every combat leader under his command is taking careful note of his behavior. It is not the behavior they have dedicated their lives to perform. More broadly, what troubles me most is the administration's refusal to explain itself to Congress and the American people. This suggests they know this operation and the tortured legal rationale they use to justify it cannot withstand scrutiny. Chairman Wicker--and I applaud him for his very forceful determination to investigate this situation. We both have formally requested the Executive orders that guide these operations and the full, unedited videos and audio from each strike. We have asked for the intelligence that identified these vessels as legitimate targets. We have asked for the rules of engagement governing these operations. We have asked for casualty assessments and the criteria used to distinguish combatants from civilians. And my Democratic colleagues and I have asked that the legal documents justifying these operations be declassified and shared with the public. These are fundamental questions that any lawful military operation should be able to answer clearly and definitively. These are not courtesy requests; they are statutory requirements under multiple laws, including the War Powers Resolution and several National Defense Authorization Acts. But after 3 months of asking for material that legally should have been provided to us promptly, the Pentagon has provided only limited information while it has refused to answer basic questions about even that limited material. Legal experts across the political spectrum have nearly unanimously denounced these operations as unlawful. Yet, rather than provide justification, the administration withholds information. If this operation serves vital American interests, if it can achieve its stated objectives, and if it is legal under domestic and international law, then why won't they defend it before Congress and the American people? The stonewalling suggests they lack genuine answers. The secrecy suggests they know that this operation does not make sense, is not good policy, and, indeed, is quite illegal in many respects. Now, Mr. Hegseth's credibility is not the exclusive issue here--the issue is the law--but his repeated dishonesty makes oversight even more essential. I am calling for immediate action. First, the Department of Defense must initiate an investigation into the September 2 incident. This is standard military practice for accountability and establishing lessons learned. The investigation must include a thorough review of the orders and chain of command decisions. This is how we ensure procedures were followed and prevent future violations. Second, the Pentagon must declassify and publish the full, unedited video of the September 2 strike. If they followed the laws of war, it will be clear for all of us to see. If they have nothing to hide, transparency would be welcomed and obvious. The American people deserve to see what is being done in their name, and I can only say their reluctance to do so suggests that they are reluctant for a reason. These films could be highly incriminating. The American people deserve to see them. Third, the White House must declassify the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel's opinion underpinning their legal argument for this operation. There is no reason for this document to remain hidden. The American people deserve to know why this administration believes it has a license to kill in their name and what parameters govern that authority. If the legal reasoning is sound, it should withstand public scrutiny. If it cannot, then these operations should not continue. These are not unreasonable demands. They are basic requirements of democratic accountability and the rule of law. I have spoken with General Caine, and I will speak with Admiral Bradley later this week. It is imperative that the military personnel involved be truthful and forthright. The truth will come out--maybe not this week or next week. But it will come out. It always does. The problem, regrettably, is that I do not believe Mr. Hegseth. He has lied repeatedly about this operation and others, claiming news stories are false, only to be contradicted by the White House or other sources. His argument boils down to: Take him at his word; trust him. But, frankly, I cannot--not when the law is this clear, not when the stakes are this high. Shamelessly violating the laws of armed conflict puts our own service men and women at risk of receiving the same treatment in the future by our adversaries. My colleagues and I are actively gathering more information about the September 2 strike. If the reported details are true, they represent a grave breach of the laws of war. There must be bipartisan oversight actions taken, committed to facts, truth, and the law above all else. Chairman Wicker and I have given the Department more than enough time to respond in good faith to reasonable questions. Secretary Hegseth has refused. But the law demands better. The American people deserve better. And, most importantly, our servicemembers deserve better. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, over the past 2 months, President Trump has ordered 16 airstrikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing more than 65 people. His administration boasts that they are targeting drug-trafficking organizations. Yet Congress and the American people have received minimal information about the intelligence supporting these strikes, the legal framework governing these strikes, or the strategic objective they are meant to accomplish. I want to be clear about something at the outset: I have spent years advocating for stronger action against drug cartels that poison our communities. I have consistently voted to provide law enforcement with the resources they need to dismantle these criminal networks. I have supported international cooperation to target these organizations at their source. And like everyone here, I recognize the cartels are a scourge and they must be confronted aggressively and dismantled thoroughly. But that is not what is happening here. Let me begin with the most fundamental question: What is the operation actually meant to accomplish? The administration has emphasized fentanyl as the primary justification for these strikes. Yet their own officials have acknowledged that cocaine is the predominant drug trafficked through these Caribbean routes. The fentanyl that is devastating American communities flows overwhelmingly through different routes. So what problem are we actually trying to solve? And I think it should be obvious you cannot bomb your way out of a drug crisis. The demand that motivates drug trafficking is not found in the Caribbean. It is located in communities across America where people are suffering from addiction, where economic opportunity has dried up, where the social fabric has frayed. Military strikes do nothing to address those root causes. Indeed, the significant budgetary attacks on Medicaid and other programs--health programs--will further undermine our attempts to control demand and to solve our drug problem. We have been down this road many times before in many parts of the world. We have seen what happens when military force is employed without clear objectives, without defined endpoints, without an honest assessment of what military power can and cannot achieve. The so-called ``war on drugs'' has been waged for decades. It has cost billions of dollars and countless lives, and it has not solved the problem. As we expand this military operation in South and Central America, we have to ask: What does victory look like? How do we know when this mission is complete? I know when many of us considered the Iraq war, I think many failed to ask the fundamental question: What happens when we win? Because we won quickly and then found ourselves in a 20-year struggle throughout the region to maintain stability. As I indicated before, more than 65 people have been killed across 16 strikes. Boats have been blown out of the water in videos released by the administration. But has the flow of fentanyl into America decreased? Has a single trafficking network been dismantled? The administration hasn't provided any evidence that these strikes are achieving anything beyond the destruction they document on camera. This is not a strategy. This is violence without a strategic objective. The administration's legal justification shifts every week. First, they simply cited the President's article II authority and claimed that these cartels were terrorist organizations. Then the President decided that America is in a ``non-international armed conflict,'' which is a dubious claim. Now, Secretary Hegseth has begun calling these cartels ``the Al Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere,'' and declared open season on them. But he seems to have forgotten an important fact: After 9/11, Congress passed an authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, to provide the legal basis for using military force against al- Qaida. By Secretary Hegseth's own logic, this current operation requires congressional authorization. But there is a deeper problem with the administration's analogy to terrorism. Terrorists pursue political objectives. Cartels pursue profit and power. They are criminals, not ideological combatants waging war against the United States. If the White House truly believed that these are terrorist organizations and the Defense Secretary truly thinks Tren de Aragua compares to al-Qaida, the administration should come to Congress and request a AUMF. The fact that they haven't is revealing. When the legal justification keeps changing, it means that there is no clear mission to begin with. And here is what troubles me the most: the administration's refusal to explain itself, both to Congress and the American people. It suggests that they know this operation does not hold up to scrutiny. Chairman Wicker and I have sent multiple requests to Secretary Hegseth to submit the basic information Congress is legally entitled to: execute orders, legal justifications, and intelligence underpinning individual strikes. The Pentagon has taken more than 2 months to provide only some of this information and has refused to answer simple questions regarding the very limited information that has been provided to date. And this is not a partisan complaint. These are statutory requirements that are being ignored and noticed by both sides of the aisle. The United Nations has stated that these strikes ``violate international human rights law'' and find ``no justification in international law.'' Legal experts across the political spectrum have been nearly unanimous in denouncing these operations as unlawful. Yet the administration's response has been to withhold information rather than provide justification. If this operation serves vital American interests, if it can achieve its stated objectives, and if it is legal under domestic and international law, then why won't the administration defend it before Congress and the American people? The obfuscation suggests they don't have genuine answers. The secrecy suggests they know this doesn't make sense. Now the situation grows more dangerous. The USS Gerald R. Ford, our largest and newest aircraft carrier, is headed to the Caribbean, bringing additional warships and thousands of sailors and marines. This is not a limited operation; this is a major military buildup. To what end? The administration will not say. Against what enemy? They won't specify. For how long? They refuse to answer. These operations risk destabilizing the region and provoking direct confrontation with Venezuela. We could be stumbling into another open- ended conflict without purpose or plan. If the administration intends to escalate toward conflict with Venezuela, Congress has a constitutional duty to declare and authorize such action. We cannot sleepwalk into another war through incremental escalation while being kept in the dark. To my Republican colleagues, I know many of you share concerns about endless American wars. I know many of you have questioned open-ended military commitments that lack clear strategic objectives. You have consistently opposed Executive overreach by previous Presidents in the manner of war. These SOUTHCOM operations look like the beginning of exactly that kind of entanglement, and we are being asked to accept it on faith-- without information, without debate, without authorization. Which brings me to the matter of constitutional authority. The Constitution is unambiguous. Article I, section 8 vests the power to declare war in Congress, not in the executive branch. This was not an oversight by the Founders; it was a deliberate choice borne from hard experience with monarchs who could commit their nations to war by decree. The War Powers Resolution exists to give meaning to that constitutional principle. It requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing forces into hostilities and to obtain authorization within 60 days. The Trump administration delivered its war powers notification to Congress on September 4. The 60-day window to receive congressional authorization closed on Monday without approval being rendered. A law- abiding administration would cease its operation, but the Trump administration continues on. Incredibly, according to public reporting, the White House is apparently now arguing that these strikes don't constitute ``hostilities'' under the War Powers Act because American servicemembers aren't directly in harm's way while operating standoff weapons and drones. This is ridiculous. Most importantly, it is an insult to the men and women who are risking their lives flying aircraft, operating ships and submarines, and conducting reconnaissance in the region. They are very much in harm's way, and to say that this operation is so safe that it doesn't qualify as ``hostilities'' is embarrassing. Also, it suggests, perhaps, the logic that these really aren't military operations or hostilities; they are premeditated attacks to produce lethal effects on people who may or may not be drug dealers. This new interpretation creates a dangerous precedent. If standoff weapons exempt military operations from congressional oversight, we have effectively granted the executive branch unlimited authority to wage war anywhere in the world so long as American forces can strike from a distance. Does this mean that we can fire a long-range missile into another country because we are not in hostilities since there are no servicemembers directly in danger as we launch the missile from our territory? That logic does not hold up. That represents, indeed, a fundamental rewriting of our Constitution--not through amendment or legislation but through one man's decision. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I ask you to consider what authority you would be comfortable granting to any President--not just this one but the next one and the one after that. The powers we recognize today will be exercised by future administrations. Constitutional principles should not bend with political convenience. I believe that this is not a political debate; this is about the institution of Congress and the congressional and constitutional limits on Executive power. It is about insisting that before we commit American military forces to combat operations, before we take lives in America's name, we must have clear legal authority, credible justification, and strategic coherence. If this operation makes strategic sense, let the administration make that case to Congress and the American people. Let them provide the legal justification that they have withheld. Let them explain the endgame. What happens when we win? What does winning mean? What are the limits of this operation? Let them show us how blowing up boats in the Caribbean solves what the President has repeatedly said--the fentanyl crisis in each and every one of our States. They have not done so, and until they do, this operation does not deserve our support. I urge my colleagues to hold the Trump administration accountable. The Constitution requires it. The American people deserve it. And we all have taken an oath to the Constitution, not the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter that transcends party lines and goes to the very heart of what makes America's military the most trusted institution in our country. I speak from a lifetime of devotion to the Army and our armed services. I joined the Army at 17 when I took the oath to defend and protect the Constitution as a new cadet at West Point. I served 12 years on Active Duty. I earned my Ranger tab and my senior jump wings. I had the privilege of commanding an infantry company in the 82nd Airborne Division. I taught at West Point, but I want to make it clear, I am not a combat veteran. I have spent, in addition, nearly three decades on the Senate Armed Services Committee, with the great privilege of serving as ranking member and chairman. My connection to the military is neither transient nor incidental. That is precisely why I must speak out today about what President Trump is doing to our Armed Forces. He is attempting to politicize an institution that has remained steadfastly apolitical for nearly 250 years. He is disrespecting the professionalism and sacrifice of our servicemembers. And if we in Congress do not reject his actions--and very soon--the damage could take generations to repair. America's apolitical military was constructed deliberately by leaders who understood that republics die when generals and soldiers become political pawns or political powers. George Washington set the standard. When he resigned his commission in 1783, he established a principle that military leaders serve the Nation, not a party or a President or anything else. He made clear that military leadership is not a pathway to personal political power. Washington could have made himself King. He refused, and that refusal created a tradition we inherit today. The Founders enshrined a nonpolitical military in our Constitution, giving Congress--not the President--the sole power to raise armies, establish laws governing the military, and, importantly, to declare war. The Founders built checks and balances precisely to prevent the situation we now face: a President who views the military as his personal political instrument. This tradition is maintained in the United States through deliberate policy. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits Active-Duty personnel from partisan political activities. Military bases do not host campaign rallies. Servicemembers do not appear in uniform at political events. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself has affirmed this principle. In the case of Greer v. Spock in 1976, the Court upheld military regulations strictly prohibiting partisan political activities on military bases. The Court's conclusion was unequivocal. The majority opinion explained that the military has a special responsibility to avoid ``both the reality and the appearance of acting as handmaiden for partisan political causes or candidates.'' Justice Powell went on to warn that ``it is the lesson of ancient and modern history that the major socially destabilizing influence in many European and South American countries has been a highly politicized military. . . . Complete and effective civilian control of the military would be compromised by participation of the military in the political process.'' The Supreme Court understood what we must remember: Once the military appears political, civilian control itself is compromised; public confidence evaporates; and history shows where that leads. And these are not bureaucratic niceties. Once the military becomes politicized, it loses the trust of the American people. A military seen as serving a political party cannot claim to serve the Nation. For nearly 250 years, this principle has held. The American military has remained the most trusted institution precisely because it has stayed out of politics. Now, President Trump is systematically dismantling this bedrock principle, brazenly, repeatedly, and with apparent pride. On May 24, he addressed West Point's graduating class while wearing a red MAGA hat--a political campaign symbol at a military ceremony. This was not an accident. It was a statement. He told our Nation's future Army officers that this election victory gave him the right to ``do what we wanna do.'' He told cadets about to take their oath to the Constitution that winning an election means you can do whatever you want. In June, at an event at Fort Bragg, President Trump made this politicization even more explicit. Soldiers attending the event were apparently screened for physical appearance and enthusiasm and were positioned in the bleachers as background props for what Trump boasted was a political rally. The troops were encouraged to boo his opponents, cheer his applause lines, and jeer the press. Almost as disturbing, President Trump's team brought vendors on to Fort Bragg to sell campaign merchandise to everyone, including soldiers in uniform. This was an explicit violation of longstanding Army regulations and Department of Defense policy. It exploited soldiers and the prestige of their service for the President's partisan and personal gain. And, again, just last month at Quantico, Trump spoke to a hall of hundreds of generals and admirals to make explicit what had previously been unspoken. He complained about ``an enemy within'' and told the assembled officers that dealing with this domestic enemy ``is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war, too. It's a war from within.'' Let us be clear about who Trump means when he says ``the enemy within.'' He does not mean terrorists or foreign agents. He means his political opponents. He means Americans exercising their constitutional rights to disagree with him. Indeed, any doubt about whom he considers ``the enemy within'' was erased when he pardoned more than 1,500 people convicted of attacking Congress and Capitol Police on January 6, 2021. These are people who attacked the Capitol, at President Trump's urging, who savagely beat police officers, who forced Members of Congress to flee the Chamber for their own lives. The vast majority of my colleagues were there that day and know exactly what they saw. These criminals who supported President Trump were rewarded with pardons while those who he believes are opposed to him are being targeted for retribution. This is not a theoretical concern. The President went further in his remarks at Quantico, suggesting that he wants to use ``some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.'' He proposed to deploy American troops in American cities to train for operations against American citizens--all without the consent of State and local leaders and in very apparent violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Already, we have seen him order deployments in Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Chicago, Portland, and elsewhere. The pattern is unmistakable. Trump is attempting to transform the military from an apolitical institution that serves the Constitution into a political tool that serves him. He stages political rallies on military bases. He sells campaign merchandise to troops in uniform. He fires generals who give him professional military advice he doesn't like. He tells military leaders that their mission includes waging war on his domestic political opponents. This is not normal, this is not acceptable, and if my Republican colleagues don't publicly reject this behavior, the President will fundamentally alter the character of American civil-military relations. Beyond politicalization, President Trump has shown consistent disrespect for the military leaders and the values they hold. At his West Point graduation speech, he claimed he defeated ISIS ``in three weeks.'' There is just one problem: It is not true. General Caine himself has refuted the story that President Trump repeatedly tells about that campaign--that he defeated ISIS. In fact, according to the 2025 intelligence community threat assessment, which was prepared by the Trump administration itself, ISIS ``remains the world's largest Islamic terrorist organization.'' But the President stood before America's future military leaders and essentially lied to inflate his ego and his reputation. Trump also told West Point graduates that ``we do not need an officer corps of yes-men.'' Yet he fired General Kruse, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, because the DIA's expert analysts contradicted Trump's claims about his military strike on Iran. He fired Gen. CQ Brown, ADM Lisa Franchetti, Gen. Timothy Haugh, and many others in a purge of flag officers that appears motivated by race, gender, and political loyalty rather than merit. The message is clear: Give the President the advice he wants to hear or lose your job. President Trump disrespects not just military leaders but also military customs and traditions. At the West Point graduation, he left before the diplomas were presented. He declined the opportunity to present the first and last cadets their diplomas--a tradition honored by the Presidents before him and hopefully future Presidents. He couldn't be bothered to fully participate in a ceremony that meant everything to these young officers and their families. Earlier this month at Norfolk, at the Navy's 250th anniversary celebration, Trump dispensed with any pretense. He declared: Let's face it. This is a rally. He closed the ceremony by dancing to his campaign song ``Y.M.C.A.'' by the Village People. The Navy's 250th anniversary became about Trump, not about the history of sacrifice of sailors and the service they represent. To my Republican colleagues who have served in uniform: You understand that service requires honesty, humility, and respect for those who came before you. You know that officers must give their best professional advice even if it is not what the Commander in Chief wants to hear. You know that when officers fear giving honest answers, people die, missions fail, wars are lost. So when the President lies about military operations, he disrespects every soldier who was told the truth about the battlefield. When he fires officers for honest advice, he disrespects every officer who has had the courage to speak truth to power. When he turns military ceremonies into political rallies, he disrespects every servicemember who has kept politics out of their professional life. You know this. The question is what you--and all of us--will do about it. We are at a crossroads. The damage Trump is inflicting is not theoretical; it is happening now. If we don't act, it will accelerate. America's civil-military relationship took 250 years to build, but it can be destroyed in a fraction of that time. Once the military is seen as a partisan instrument serving one party, once it is deployed domestically against political opponents, the trust that sustains it will evaporate, and that trust, once lost, can take generations to rebuild. Consider the dangers if this continues. Will military officers refuse to serve under future administrations, depending on the party in power? Will they resist civilian authority over policy disagreements? Will the military itself fracture along partisan lines? Consider what happens if Trump continues to deploy the National Guard against his political opponents. What happens when citizens see soldiers in the street to suppress constitutionally permitted dissent? What happens to recruiting when young Americans view the military as a partisan tool? What happens to military cohesion when soldiers treat fellow citizens as enemies? These are not hypothetical questions. President Trump told our most senior military leaders that fighting the ``enemy within'' is their mission. He suggested using American cities as training grounds. The precedent he sets will outlast his administration and be available to every President after him. Congress has the constitutional authority and moral obligation to stop this. We are not powerless. We control the purse--although it appears so many times recently that we want to surrender that control. We have oversight authority; we are not exercising it properly. We can pass legislation, and we must act. After 9 months of this Presidency, it is clear that my Republican colleagues must do more than recognize the problem; they must act. Republicans must work with us to call out the President and take concrete legislative action. First, we must codify prohibitions on political activities at military installations and block Federal funds from supporting such activities. No more campaign rallies on military bases. No more merchandise sales to troops in uniform or civilian dependents or anyone else who wanders up. Second, we must pass legislation--already in the Senate National Defense Authorization Act--to require explanations and notifications for senior general and flag officer dismissals. If these decisions are based on merit, the administration should have no problem explaining them publicly. Third, we must strengthen the Hatch Act as it applies to political leaders interacting with military personnel. The rules that constrain servicemembers from politics must also constrain politicians from exploiting servicemembers for political purposes. Fourth, we must establish clear standards requiring congressional approval for domestic military deployments except in genuine emergencies. The Founders gave Congress the power over the military for exactly this reason--to prevent any President from deploying troops as a personal force. I recognize the political pressure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle face, but we all took the same oath either in uniform or in elected office to support and defend the Constitution, not a President or party. The American military is trusted by the American people because it has earned that trust by remaining apolitical, professional, and devoted to defending the Constitution of the United States. I will close with this: Yesterday in Japan, President Trump boarded an aircraft carrier to address American sailors and marines. For a full hour, standing before hundreds of young men and women deployed thousands of miles from home, the Commander in Chief lectured them on his political grievances. He complained that the 2020 election was stolen. He mocked reporters. He whined about the Nobel Peace Prize. He boasted about deploying the National Guard domestically. He invented false stories about President Biden and jeered him. The sailors and marines, for their part, remained silent and respectful, like the professionals they are. But the name of that aircraft carrier is worth noting: The USS George Washington. How fitting that our first President set the standard for the military we inherit today and how shameful that President Trump so badly fails that standard. Washington recognized that the Presidency and the military are grander than any one person, and he recognized the danger of any man who believes otherwise. As he warned in his Farewell Address: Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. President Trump, I fear that Washington's warning has come to bear. Simply put, President Trump is politicizing the military for his benefit. He is disrespecting our servicemembers, and he is setting precedents that will haunt us for generations. Every day that passes, every political rally on a military base, every firing of an officer for honest advice, every statement about deploying troops against domestic opponents--each inflicts damage that becomes harder to repair. To my Republican colleagues: This is your moment. You can help defend the military you cherish--and, indeed, you do cherish it. You have served in it with distinction, honor, and courage. You can exercise your constitutional authority as the majority power, or you can stand by and concede to an Executive who recognizes no limits. I suspect history will not forgive this body--all of us--for remaining silent while the President transforms this military into his personal political tool. The military I served in and my colleagues served in deserves better. The country we all swore to defend deserves better. The young men and women taking the oath today deserve the apolitical, professional military our Founders fought and died to establish. Let us together reassert Congress's power and preserve the military tradition we inherited. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for this resolution, and, indeed, the full series of tariff resolutions my colleagues Senators Kaine and Wyden and others have put forth. And I want to take this opportunity to personally commend Senator Kaine for his leadership and for his understanding of the complexities of the issues we face. Our resolution would overturn President Trump's tariff taxes on American consumers. These tariffs are part of the President's effort to use trade policies to benefit his friends and himself at the expense of American families. He has used trade to prop up Argentina's President before a key election because that country's President has said nice things about President Trump, hardly the basis for a fundamental economic decision affecting the life of every American. And he has used trade to punish the entire country of Brazil for the prosecution of its former leader, another friend and political ally of Trump. These are not economically based decisions. These are purely personal, whimsical decisions that harm American families. The hope is that any Chief Executive is going to look thoughtfully and rationally, measure benefits and costs, and make decisions that benefit this country. That is not the case with President Trump. And while he is cutting these special-interest trade deals, President Trump is really whacking households with more than $15 billion in additional costs each month. This includes the tariffs on Brazil, one of the main sources of coffee for the United States of America. And, you know, we are just waiting for our constituents to roll up to their Dunkin Donuts, if you are in Rhode Island, and order a small coffee: That will be $15, please. That is where we are headed. And it is going to hurt our constituents, particularly the most vulnerable, and working families that are struggling to get by. Grocery prices continue to climb with essentials like coffee and beef, with a 19-percent increase and 15 percent increase, respectively, more expensive than they were a year ago. The average new car price just crossed $50,000 for the first time in our Nation's history. Investment bank UBS reports that tariffs have increased home construction costs by $9,000, and we have an affordable housing crisis in the United States in every State. And Ashley Furniture, the largest U.S. and, indeed, global furniture manufacturer, announced this month it was raising prices by as much as 12 percent due to the President's tariffs, and that was before new 25- percent furniture-specific tariff came into force. In total, researchers at Yale report that tariffs are costing families $1,800 this year. The President has essentially claimed these costs are a figment of our imagination, repeatedly claiming that foreign companies--not Americans--pay his tariffs. But his claims don't match Americans' reality or the economic data. A recent Goldman Sachs report found that foreign exporters have been paying only about 9 percent of tariff costs. In fact, Goldman, the nonprofit Peterson Institute, and investment bank Morgan Stanley have all reported that most of the President's tariffs are being absorbed by American companies, small businesses, and consumers. Indeed, our Nation's two largest auto manufacturers, General Motors and Ford, have each reported billions of dollars in new tariff-related costs. Nike told its investors it will pay $1.5 billion in tariff costs this fiscal year, and defense manufacturer Raytheon announced $220 million in tariff costs in the third quarter alone. Make no mistake, businesses, large and small, in every corner of our country, are paying these costs but with much tighter margins--much, much tighter margins--than previously. Many of the Main Street businesses may not survive because of it. And, increasingly, companies are passing the costs of these tariff taxes on to American consumers. It is not just higher costs. When companies shoulder new costs, they hire fewer workers. And we are seeing that in many parts of the country. We are seeing it in Rhode Island. Unsurprisingly, job growth, as a result, has stagnated under President Trump. Payroll company ADP found the private sector actually lost 32,000 jobs last month, while those Yale researchers estimate that Trump tariffs will eliminate half a million jobs this year. It used to be the chief responsibility of the President of the United States to create economic programs and policies that stimulated employment--not eliminated employment. And while President Trump wants to demonize any dissent toward his policies as political or the work of his enemies, data and economic warnings around his tariffs are coming from every corner of our country. I will close by noting that I do not want to be on the floor delivering this speech. I do not want to have to criticize the President for his economic decision making, but instead of pursuing thoughtful, impactful, and cost-reducing policies, President Trump has decided to take a whack at American small business and families with billions and billions in new costs. And as a Member of the Senate, I cannot sit by quietly while our President makes Americans suffer simply because their needs do not match his priorities. I was hopeful that President Trump would come to his senses before Congress and the courts act, but he has not, and that is why we are on the floor. And that is why we must pass this resolution, which is one of the first steps to eliminating these Trump-induced costs on households and businesses. Passage today would signal to Americans that Congress's priority is their financial well-being, not the well-being of the wealthy, the well-connected, and Donald Trump's personal pals. Most importantly, it would start the process of eliminating over $15 billion in new monthly costs for families. I urge my colleagues to prioritize hard-working Americans, not Donald Trump and friends, by passing this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Tillis in introducing the bipartisan Corporate Governance Fairness Act to ensure investors can continue to rely with confidence on the advice of proxy advisory firms by requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to regulate all major proxy advisory firms under the Investment Advisers Act. This advice is critical for investors as they decide how to vote their shares on important corporate governance matters, such as director elections or whether to sell the company. Indeed, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has stated that the ``independence of the research provided by proxy advisors is a critical element of our right, as shareholders, to hold the board of directors accountable and to cast informed proxy votes on corporate governance and proxy voting policies.'' According to the Council of Institutional Investors, proxy advisers ``support their clients by making the research gathering and analysis process more efficient to minimize costs for the ultimate beneficiaries, including pension recipients and retail investors.'' And the National Association of State Treasurers has emphasized the need to ``maintain the integrity and efficacy of the relationship between institutional investors and proxy advisory firms.'' In short, proxy advisory firms are an important tool for investors. But the current regulation and accountability for proxy advisory firms is inadequate. The purpose of the bipartisan Corporate Governance Fairness Act is to improve this state of affairs. Under our legislation, all major proxy advisory firms would be required to register as investment advisers under the Advisers Act. They will owe a fiduciary duty to their clients, and that duty will be enforceable under Federal law. So as to not discourage new entrants into the proxy advisory business, our bill provides smaller proxy advisory firms the choice to voluntarily register under the Investment Advisers Act but does not require them to do so. The legislation also directs the SEC to conduct periodic examinations, which must include a serious review of the conflicts of interest policies of registered proxy advisory firms and whether firms knowingly made false statements to any of its clients. Lastly, our bill requires the SEC to consult with all relevant stakeholders and report back periodically to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee with recommendations for any additional investor protections beyond continued access to proxy advisory firms so that investors have the tools to make informed investment decisions and exercise their rights as shareholders. In short, the intent of this legislation is to preserve the critical role played by proxy advisory firms and to hold them accountable to investors. I would like to thank Senator Tillis for working with me in crafting this bipartisan legislation, and I urge all of our Senate colleagues to join us in working to pass the Corporate Governance Fairness Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Tillis in introducing the bipartisan Corporate Governance Fairness Act to ensure investors can continue to rely with confidence on the advice of proxy advisory firms by requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to regulate all major proxy advisory firms under the Investment Advisers Act. This advice is critical for investors as they decide how to vote their shares on important corporate governance matters, such as director elections or whether to sell the company. Indeed, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has stated that the ``independence of the research provided by proxy advisors is a critical element of our right, as shareholders, to hold the board of directors accountable and to cast informed proxy votes on corporate governance and proxy voting policies.'' According to the Council of Institutional Investors, proxy advisers ``support their clients by making the research gathering and analysis process more efficient to minimize costs for the ultimate beneficiaries, including pension recipients and retail investors.'' And the National Association of State Treasurers has emphasized the need to ``maintain the integrity and efficacy of the relationship between institutional investors and proxy advisory firms.'' In short, proxy advisory firms are an important tool for investors. But the current regulation and accountability for proxy advisory firms is inadequate. The purpose of the bipartisan Corporate Governance Fairness Act is to improve this state of affairs. Under our legislation, all major proxy advisory firms would be required to register as investment advisers under the Advisers Act. They will owe a fiduciary duty to their clients, and that duty will be enforceable under Federal law. So as to not discourage new entrants into the proxy advisory business, our bill provides smaller proxy advisory firms the choice to voluntarily register under the Investment Advisers Act but does not require them to do so. The legislation also directs the SEC to conduct periodic examinations, which must include a serious review of the conflicts of interest policies of registered proxy advisory firms and whether firms knowingly made false statements to any of its clients. Lastly, our bill requires the SEC to consult with all relevant stakeholders and report back periodically to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee with recommendations for any additional investor protections beyond continued access to proxy advisory firms so that investors have the tools to make informed investment decisions and exercise their rights as shareholders. In short, the intent of this legislation is to preserve the critical role played by proxy advisory firms and to hold them accountable to investors. I would like to thank Senator Tillis for working with me in crafting this bipartisan legislation, and I urge all of our Senate colleagues to join us in working to pass the Corporate Governance Fairness Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield for a question? I think he will.