Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, to help libraries respond to and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and continue providing communities with needed services, resources, technology, and broadband access, I am introducing the Library Stabilization Fund Act along with Senators Brown, Booker, Blumenthal, Udall, Cardin, Warren, Whitehouse, Heinrich, Van Hollen, Menendez, Wyden, Hirano, and Markey. Our bill would provide the $2 billion the American Library Association has estimated is necessary for a library stabilization fund under the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on every aspect of our daily lives. Libraries, which anchor our local communities, are no exception. Local budget shortfalls have left libraries to grapple with severe cuts, furloughs of staff, and reduced operations just when communities need their services the most. In addition to providing additional resources to enable schools to reopen safely, close the homework gap, and strengthen the social safety net, we need to invest in libraries to help our communities recover. Libraries are a critical piece of our education, economic development, and social infrastructure. Although many libraries remain closed or have limited hours, libraries are meeting urgent community needs by increasing technology access (including boosting WIFI and lending hotspots, tablets, and computers), offering digital content, providing books and materials for delivery or pick-up, and hosting online story times, classes, and discussion groups. In this way, libraries are providing enrichment to our young people, ensuring students can connect to remote and summer learning, enabling those with jobs to telework, helping job seekers find employment and receive training, and offering a lifeline to vulnerable adults and seniors who need health information, a portal to government services, and ways to avoid social isolation. To strengthen the ability of libraries to serve communities affected by COVID-19, our bill would provide funding to states on a formula basis, with a minimum allotment of $10 million; to tribes; and on a competitive basis. The funding could be used to support general operations, including paying staff and ensuring the safe handling of library materials; to offer greater access to technology, including expanding digital networks and enabling the purchase and lending of hotspots, laptops, and digital resources; to strengthen services and resources, including those relating to literacy, distance learning, adult education, workforce and economic development, and health information; and to link patrons to government, community, and cultural resources. This legislation will help ensure libraries can continue to find new ways to bridge the digital divide and safely provide information, programming, and services that people of all ages need to stay engaged and informed. This smart investment in our libraries will keep people and communities connected and contribute to our economic recovery. I thank the supporters of the bill, including the American Library Association; Association for Rural & Small Libraries; Association of Research Libraries; Chief Officers of State Library Agencies; Common Sense Media: International Dyslexia Association; National Association of Elementary School Principals; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Coalition for Literacy; National Digital Inclusion Alliance; National Humanities Alliance; National League of Cities; Reach Out and Read; Reading Is Fundamental; and Urban Libraries Council. Companion legislation is being introduced on a bipartisan basis in the other body by Congressman Andy Levin. I urge our colleagues to join us in pressing for the inclusion of the Library Stabilization Fund Act in the next COVID-19 response package.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to support efforts by my Democratic colleagues to pass much needed and delayed economic measures by unanimous consent. It is painfully obvious that the economy is in bad shape. Families and small businesses continue to struggle and there is a real need for further Federal assistance. In order to get our economy back on track, this body must take action in crafting another comprehensive, bipartisan COVID relief package, and it must include additional help for families and communities including eviction and foreclosure prevention assistance, as well as additional help for State and local governments. Last night the Senate unanimously extended the PPP application window. This was a tiny but needed step in recognizing the depth of the economic crisis Americans are facing. Now the question before us is, will Republican leaders allow this body to work its will and provide needed, targeted, and effective rescue assistance, or will it continue to delay and deny assistance which will only prolong the pandemic, deepen the financial hole, and make the remedy costlier and recovery steeper? Strong State and local governments are critical to our economy. Indeed, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, State and local governments provide about 20 million jobs and contributed 8.5 percent to the national GDP in 2019. They did so by not only serving as customers and clients for our local and national businesses, but also by providing the essential services, such as public infrastructure, a strong education system, and other necessary functions that provide the business certainty that make our country attractive to businesses and investors throughout the world. We should do everything possible to maintain our country's comparative advantage relative to other countries. But today, as a result of the tremendous economic shock created by the coronavirus and the lack of a coherent public health strategy from the Trump administration, estimated State revenue shortfalls will total about $615 billion over the next 3 fiscal years, not including the added costs of fighting COVID-19. This is just for the States--$615 billion. This is why I initially fought for $750 billion in the Coronavirus Relief Fund when negotiating the CARES Act and introduced S. 3671, the State & Local Emergency Stabilization Fund Act, which would provide an additional $600 billion to State and local governments to supplement the $150 billion in coronavirus relief funds I secured in the CARES Act. Madam President, would it surprise you to learn that the Trump Treasury Department has needlessly created a bureaucratic regulation that makes it difficult for States to use these coronavirus relief funds? And that this regulation is standing in the way of what should have been an immediate $150 billion boost to our economy, which even the Chamber of Commerce thinks is burdensome. Because of this onerous Trump rule, States can't use the coronavirus relief funds to replace lost or delayed tax revenues in order to maintain public services. That is what Neil Bradley, the U.S. Chamber's chief policy officer said in an interview, ``Part of our conversation with Republicans on Capitol Hill is that, ironically, if your concern is big State government, then the last thing you need to do is force States to replace one-time lost revenue with permanent tax increases.'' As the primary author of the Coronavirus Relief Fund, I can tell you that it is fully within the Treasury Secretary's authority and the intent of the CARES Act for these funds to be used to replace lost or delayed tax revenues and maintain public services. To prevent the flexible use of these relief funds is a choice that is neither required nor intended by law. Unfortunately, this completely unnecessary choice has already created avoidable economic harm. Since February, State and local governments have cut a total of 1.5 million jobs, an 8-percent drop that is twice the decline seen during and after the 2007-2009 recession. In addition, the Center for Economic and Policy Research reports that ``job losses forced on State and local governments by pandemic-related shortfalls will disproportionately impact the African American workforce . . . 14 percent of state and local employees were African American compared to 11.7 percent of private sector employees, a margin of 20 percent.'' As the Wall Street Journal reported in a May 24, 2020, article titled ``State and Local Budget Woes Create Drag for Economic Recovery Prospects": Based on evidence from the last recession, Mr. Chodorow- Reich, a Harvard economics professor, estimates that every dollar in cuts costs the economy $1.50 to $2. He also said every additional dollar in spending adds $1.50 to $2 to the economy. Of all the regulations that this administration seeks to cut, it should start with this one if it really wants a healthy economy. With just one stroke of the Treasury Secretary's pen, our economy can receive a direct multibillion dollar jolt today. But to be clear, this administrative fix is by no means sufficient because of the massive revenue shortfalls our State and local governments are facing. Congress still needs to provide additional and flexible fiscal relief to our State and local governments as part of its next fiscal package, and it is my hope that S. 3671, the State & Local Stabilization Fund Act, is included. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, keeping families in their homes also must be included in the next package. According to Nicholas Chiumenti, with the New England Public Policy Center in the research department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston: If current economic activity does not improve substantially, without an extension of the CARES Act, unemployment insurance or additional stimulus money or other fiscal relief, up to 13 percent of homeowners and 33 percent of renters in Rhode Island are at the risk of being unable to pay their mortgage or rent payments. This represents over 80,000 Rhode Island households. Nationally, according to census survey data, 23 percent of all adults reported being housing insecure in mid-June, meaning that they had missed last month's rent or mortgage payment or had slight or no confidence that their household could pay next month's rent or mortgage on time. We know that behind each one of these numbers is a family that can be homeless at the worst possible time in the middle of a public health emergency. For some, given their current health situations and age, there will be an additional human toll that we surely should strive to avoid. We implore our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us to keep our constituents in their homes so that they too can make it to the other side of this public health emergency. In that spirit, I draw your attention to S. 3620, the Housing Assistance Fund. This legislation expands the existing ``Hardest Hit Fund'' model and provides it with additional resources for each State to keep families in their homes, the utilities on, the internet connected, and the property taxes paid. As a result, landlords who are also struggling to pay their own bills would receive some assistance. Madam President, it is not every day that the Independent Community Bankers of America and the Credit Union National Association support the same legislation with consumer rights and affordable housing organizations, such as the National Housing Conference, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the Center for Responsible Lending, and the National Consumer Law Center, among others. As we work toward this next fiscal relief package, I hope you and our colleagues will consider joining with us in enacting S. 3620, the Housing Assistance Fund. But we can't stop there. We must also immediately, among other needs, increase SNAP benefits to help the almost 150,000 Rhode Islanders who are food insecure during this crisis; boost public health efforts to help keep the virus at bay, from more testing and contact tracing to supporting our healthcare providers, to developing effective vaccine deployment systems; help childcare centers, public schools, and college campuses to safely reopen and support libraries in keeping our communities connected; provide relief for the hardest hit small and mid-sized businesses, many of which will continue to be shut down for the foreseeable future; and safeguard our election infrastructure, as Russia and other foreign actors seek again to use voter suppression, hacking, and disinformation in the 2020 elections. What exactly are we waiting for? Is it not enough that, according to a June 29 CNBC article, ``the employment-population ratio--the number of employed people as a percentage of the U.S. adult population-- plunged to 52.8 percent in May, meaning 47.2 percent of Americans are jobless, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Is it not enough that 46 percent of Business Roundtable CEOs expect employment at their companies to decrease in the next 6 months? We don't need to inflict any further unnecessary economic pain and suffering. I would also urge my colleagues to consider the costs of inaction. Indeed, during an April 29, 2020, press conference, Federal Reserve Chairman Powell stated: I have long-time been an advocate for the need for the United States to return to a sustainable path from a fiscal perspective at the Federal level. We have not been on such a path for some time, which . . . just means that the debt is growing faster than the economy. This is not the time to act on those concerns. This is the time to use the great fiscal power of the United States to do what we can to support the economy and try to get through this with as little damage to the longer-run productive capacity of the economy as possible. This week we are also considering the National Defense Authorization Act, and every year for the last 59 years, Democrats and Republicans have come together to strengthen our national security and to help all Americans. We have proven that we are more than capable of working together productively on the most complex and controversial issues in service of our constituents, and we would like to continue that not just in the context of national defense but in the context of economic prosperity and security. One final point. We also need to extend unemployment compensation insurance because we know it will run out, and everyone has told us that unemployment rates will not drop dramatically. They will stay persistently high. People will need this assistance going forward. We must do more, and I hope we can do much more going forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague from Rhode Island in celebrating the tenure of Reverend Brian J. Shanley as the 12th president of Providence College. As he completes his service, we thank him for his many contributions to the intellectual, social, and spiritual life in Providence. A native of Warwick, RI, and a graduate of Toll Gate High School, Father Shanley raised the national profile of Providence College, strengthening its academic programs, transforming and modernizing the campus, and fielding championship athletic teams. During his presidency, the college established its first Center for Global Education, the East and West Campuses were finally connected, and the Friars brought home the 2014 Big East Men's Basketball Championship and the 2015 NCAA Men's Hockey Championship. But the extent of his impact on students and the community is much broader than academic rankings, innovative land use, and sports. He advanced the mission of the college as an ``institution of higher education and a community committed to academic excellence in pursuit of the truth, growth in virtue, and service of God and neighbor.'' The motto of Providence College and the Dominican Order is ``Veritas'' or ``Truth.'' As president, Father Shanley worked to create an environment where students could discover truth both academically and spiritually. He established an Office of Mission and Ministry. Under his leadership, Providence College students have performed thousands of hours of community service in the city and beyond. The search for truth has also led to a greater commitment to racial and social justice on campus. When students occupied his office, calling for action on diversity and inclusion, Father Shanley met with them and agreed to concreate actions to promote diversity and inclusion in academics and other aspects of campus life. During his tenure the college also established the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As a scholar of philosophy, Father Shanley follows the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, another Dominican friar, who wrote that it is ``better to illuminate than merely shine to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.'' That is the kind of leadership Father Shanley has provided to Providence College for these past 15 years. He will be missed on campus and around town. I wish him well in his next endeavors and thank him for his service.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague from Rhode Island in celebrating the career of a distinguished national servant and university leader, the Honorable Ronald K. Machtley, who is retiring from Bryant University after serving as its president for 24 years. Today, marks President Machtley's final day at the helm of Bryant University. He has been an extraordinary leader and has placed the university on a path for continued growth and innovation. President Machtley brought a deep commitment to public service to Bryant University. A graduate of the Naval Academy, he retired as a captain after 25 years in Active Duty and the Reserves. He was elected to the House of Representatives to represent the First Congressional District of Rhode Island in 1988, where he served for three terms. Two of these terms, we served side by side. In 1996, he was selected to be the eighth president of then-Bryant College, an institution founded in 1863 to provide business education to working people, especially Civil War veterans. When he arrived at Bryant College, President Machtley found an institution struggling to survive. Enrollment was low, with five empty dormitories, and the budget was in deficit. He began the painstaking work of restoring the college's confidence, finances, and educational programs. By 2004, Bryant College was ready to become Bryant University. Today, applications to Bryant are at alltime highs, and enrollment stands at 3,500 undergraduate students compared to only 2,200 in 1996. President Machtley also led successful capital campaigns and oversaw the transformation of campus facilities, including the 2016 opening of the state-of-the-art Academic Innovation Center. He expanded Bryant's reach around the globe, opening a campus in Zhuhai, China. These investments in the university have paid off. Bryant has climbed in the national rankings, and Bryant graduates are highly competitive. Recent data show that 99 percent of Bryant University students have jobs or are in graduate school within 6 months of graduation. Bryant University will also miss the contributions of Mrs. Kati C Machtley, who has served as an ambassador for the university and spearheaded important campus initiatives. Since 1997, Mrs. Machtley has led the annual Women's Summit at Bryant, which has provided a forum to inspire, empower, and advance women. The Machtley's have helped lay the foundation that will launch Bryant University into the future. Now that future is in the good hands of the faculty, administration, students, and alumni. They continue to inspire us all with their example. I thank them for their service and wish them well in retirement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to further discuss the fiscal year 2021 national defense authorization bill. Senator Inhofe will be speaking later today on the bill, and I again want to thank him for his leadership and bipartisanship throughout the drafting of this very important legislation. As I noted last week, the Committee on Armed Services adopted this bill with the strong bipartisan support of 25 to 2. I am hopeful that we can have a productive consideration of this bill on the floor this week, with votes on amendments and packages of cleared amendments, so that we can conduct further efforts to improve and amend this legislation. The bill authorizes $662.3 billion in base funding for the Department of Defense and Energy's nuclear programs and an additional $69 billion for overseas contingency operations, which align with the caps established in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. I want to applaud the chairman for providing the Department with the resources it needs while remaining within the constraints we set under the Budget Control Act. The bill before us will provide much needed stability and predictability to the Department of Defense. For the Army, the bill supports many modernization objectives, including critical priorities such as Long Range Precision Fires and the Future Vertical Lift Program. It also fully funds critical legacy platforms such as the M1 Abrams tank that the Army needs until new systems are fielded in the future. Further, the bill includes resources for active protection systems for combat vehicles, as well as additional funding for the Army's Multi-Domain Task Force, which is critical to the Army's efforts in the Pacific. For the Navy and Marine Corps, the bill would add roughly $900 million to authorize a number of unfunded priorities identified by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant. I am disappointed that we could not, however, fully fund the CNO's top unfunded priority--the 10th Virginia class submarine in the current multiyear procurement program. However, I am pleased that this bill provides sufficient funds to keep open the option for the 10th boat in fiscal year 2022 or 2023. It also mandates changes in the oversight and execution of shipbuilding and unmanned systems development programs--changes that should help instill more rigor and discipline within the Navy. Turning to air power, the bill helps improve oversight of the Department by requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual 30-year plan for the procurement of the aircraft in the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, and the Department of the Army. This is similar to the 30-year shipbuilding report that is already in statute. The bill also supports the Department's efforts to achieve reduced operating and support costs of the F-35 program and perhaps motivates the Department to lower costs in other weapons systems overall, which will be a critical factor going forward. In the area of special operations, our forces remain heavily engaged around the world, and I am pleased that the bill authorizes funding at the requested level of $13 billion, including increased funding for high-priority requirements identified by the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command necessary to reconstitute capabilities lost in combat over the past several years. Further, the bill also includes provisions designed to enable the Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict to more effectively fulfill advocacy and oversight responsibilities with regard to the Special Operations Forces. Turning to personnel matters, the bill authorizes the active and reserve component end strengths necessary to meet national defense objectives, provides a 3-percent pay raise for the troops, and reauthorizes a number of bonus, special, and incentive pay authorities necessary to recruit and retain the highest quality individuals for military service. Further, the bill includes a number of additional provisions that support quality of life for our military personnel. It authorizes $75 million for the services to conduct better oversight of privatized housing and hire more staff in the housing arena. It also requires the Department of Defense inspector general to conduct an audit of the medical conditions of servicemembers and their families who lived in unhealthy military privatized housing. I am particularly pleased that this bill authorizes $50 million for supplemental impact aid and $20 million in impact aid for severely disabled military children, and it rejects a proposal by the Department to cut 172 teachers from DOD schools. In addition, the bill includes a provision, sponsored by Senator Gillibrand, which would allow victims of sexual assault to report incidents without fear of being disciplined for minor misconduct that was collateral to the sexual assault. It further includes a provision to improve the tracking and response to child abuse on military installations. Turning to readiness, the bill authorizes an additional $79 million in Army operations and maintenance to replace child development center playground equipment, which will address safety issues and provides an additional $47 million in Army operations and maintenance for six key Child and Youth Services Program improvements across multiple installations. To help counter the effects of climate change, the bill authorizes $50 million in planning and design for military installation resilience for climate change adaptation projects. It also adds $8 million to the Navy's direct air capture and seawater carbon capture program. To reduce fuel use, the bill adds $65 million to the Operational Energy Capability Improvement Fund to pursue promising innovations to weapons platforms like hybrid electric drive for ships or improved turbine engines for aircraft that improve combat capability with less fuel. The bill also increases Air Force operational energy programs which reduce fuel, such as using smaller fins and streamlining the C- 130 fuselage. I am disappointed, however, that the committee did not accept an amendment, offered by Senator Shaheen, which would have deemed the chemicals PFAS and PFOA as hazardous and a pollutant under the DOD Environmental Restoration Program. Elevated levels of PFAS, a class of manmade chemicals that have been manufactured since the 1950s, may be contaminating drinking water in 33 States nationwide, including my State of Rhode Island. PFAS has been linked to a variety of cancers, weakened immunity, and other serious health problems. Senator Shaheen's amendment would have also codified Secretary Esper's PFAS task force; required blood testing of PFAS in servicemembers and their dependents as part of their existing annual checkups; stopped incineration of PFAS substances by DOD until final guidance following EPA rules are published; reported on remaining installations not yet tested for PFAS and all DOD locations of PFAS incineration; and also added $25 million in O&M for Air Force environmental restoration. I will continue to work with Senator Shaheen and other colleagues to gain acceptance of this legislation. I think it is vitally important that we do so as we debate this bill on the floor. In the area of science and technology, I am pleased that the bill increases funding for important research activities and includes provisions to support Pentagon efforts to develop and deploy artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and emerging biotechnologies to protect our national security. It also includes several provisions that continue our efforts to reform antiquated Pentagon procurement practices and strengthen our domestic manufacturing and industrial base, including in critical sectors such as microelectronics, pharmaceuticals, and rare earth materials. In the area of spectrum management, this bill includes a provision sponsored by Senator Wicker, along with Chairman Inhofe, Senator Cantwell, and myself. I am pleased by the provision's inclusion, which would aid development of a common database to allow executive branch agencies to share finite spectrum resources efficiently. This is an example of bipartisan work between two important committees--the Armed Services Committee and the Commerce Committee--and I hope we can continue to build upon it. Turning to cyber security, I am pleased that this bill adopts 11 of the recommendations from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, which was cochaired by Senator King. I want to commend Senator King on extraordinary work. His insight, his ability to work with others, his grasp of not only the present situation but what is emerging quickly in the future is extraordinary and commendable. He has done a remarkable job. The Commission took on a tough issue and did a very, very thorough job. While we were able to include recommendations in the Armed Services Committee's jurisdiction in our bill, the Commission has many more thoughtful recommendations that span across many committee jurisdictions, and I hope we can work together on the floor in this bill to incorporate those provisions. The bill also requires the Department to present a strategy to the White House and Congress to revive the manufacture of advanced microelectronics in the United States. This Defense authorization bill includes a number of provisions that enhance the United States' ability to compete with near-peer competitors, and we are actively seeking ways in which we can prevent these competitors from undermining our national security and, indeed, the international order. With regard to Russia, this bill enhances our deterrence capabilities, including by fully funding the request for the European Deterrence Initiative. In addition, the bill requires a report on Russian support to racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist groups in Europe and the United States. The problem of racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist groups is an emerging national security threat, not simply a law enforcement problem, as Russia and Russian agents or entities are working to advance Russian strategic objectives by co- opting, supporting, and amplifying these groups to sow divisions and threaten our democratic institutions. The bill also maintains strong support for Ukraine through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and requires a 5-year plan for helping Ukraine build the capabilities it needs to defend itself from Russian aggression. Turning to China, the bill establishes the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, a new authority for the Department of Defense modeled after the European Deterrence Initiative, and authorizes $200 million in funding. The bill also increases funding for the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative to ensure that our partner countries in South and Southeast Asia are able to respond effectively to Chinese coercion in the South China Sea and beyond. The bill also includes a provision that was adopted during markup, expressing the sense of the Congress that the USS Mercy and the USS Comfort should conduct port calls in Taiwan to collaborate on COVID-19 response and best practices. While I applaud Taiwan's efforts on COVID-19, Taiwan is not a sovereign state, and conducting port calls is a larger policy issue that should be more fully discussed and debated. For those reasons, I voted against the amendment. With respect to countering the continued threat by ISIS, the bill extends the Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Programs at the requested funding levels, while ensuring appropriate congressional oversight of the use of such funds. Specific to Iraq, the bill continues efforts to normalize security assistance to Iraq by transitioning funding to enduring authorities. For Afghanistan, the bill extends the authority to train and equip Afghan Security Forces at the requested funding level and enhances congressional oversight of such funds. It requires an assessment of the progress made on issues such as anti-corruption, recruitment and retention of security forces, and commitments made by the Afghanistan Government in support of peace negotiations. It also includes a specific reporting requirement should the Department elect to withhold any security assistance to Afghanistan. In addition, the bill includes a sense of the Senate provision, which I was proud to cosponsor, expressing concern that a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. military, diplomatic, and intelligence personnel from Afghanistan without effective, countervailing efforts to secure gains in Afghanistan may allow violent extremist groups to regenerate. These conditions would threaten the security of the Afghan people and create a security vacuum that could destabilize the region and provide ample safe haven for extremist groups seeking to conduct external attacks. It also requires a report on current and projected threats to the United States homeland and that of our allies emanating from Afghanistan. Further, the bill includes a provision sponsored by Senator Shaheen to refine and clarify expectations for the Department on the implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security Act, which was adopted by unanimous consent during the committee's markup. Turning to nuclear testing, I have concerns about the addition of a provision sponsored by Senator Cotton which holds $10 million to cover costs of reducing the time to conduct nuclear tests if they are deemed necessary. The United States has not conducted a nuclear test since 1992. Each year the three lab Directors of our National Laboratory give a written assessment of the stockpile and whether it needs testing. For 22 years, they have said that weapons do not need to be tested as long as we continue the Stockpile Stewardship Program. In addition, it would realistically take over 2 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to actually be ready for a test. I don't believe we should be even signaling that the Nation is considering doing this without a full and lengthy debate of the issues by Congress, and that was one of the reasons I opposed the amendment. For 18 years, the Senate Armed Services Committee has honestly struggled over the Defense Department's detainee policy, particularly regarding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. For many years, the policy remained unchanged, but for the past several years, the committee has adopted an amendment in markup that would allow detainees to be transferred to the United States for emergency medical treatment and then returned to the detention facility at Guantanamo. This is an aging population of detainees, and there are certain conditions that cannot be treated at Guantanamo, and moving all the medical equipment and specialty doctors to Guantanamo would be cost- prohibitive. However, I was very disappointed that this year the medical transfer amendment was defeated for the first time. Allowing detainees to be transferred to the United States for medical treatment is the most cost-effective and humane way forward to ensure we treat detainees with dignity and in accordance with our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. This is a problem that can only get more urgent as time passes, and I hope we can find a way forward on this issue. Finally, it is impossible to discuss this bill without discussing the many crises facing our Nation. The crisis affecting every citizen is the exponential spread of COVID-19, and our military is not immune. As of today, 11,770 military personnel are infected. Adding in DOD families and civilians, the number is closer to 17,000. That number increased by over 1,500 individuals in the last 48 hours and continues to trend upward. That is a startling growth in these cases. Our National Guard members are most heavily impacted because they are on the frontlines of the pandemic. These infections affect the readiness of our force in their ability to train and deploy and to do so without worrying about the health of their families. The administration's response to the pandemic has been woefully inadequate, and immediate steps must be taken to aid civilians and military personnel alike. Our Nation has also been engulfed by protests over the senseless murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and others at the hands of police officers and some civilians. These deaths magnify centuries of injustice and brutality against African Americans. These protests have been occurring across the country and have been overwhelmingly peaceful, although there have been isolated exceptions. Our Nation is in pain, but rather than call for unity and calm, President Trump has threatened to bring military troops against peaceful protesters. While the President does have the authority to call up military personnel under the Insurrection Act, it does not mean he should. It is used quite rarely as an exception to the broad principle embedded deeply in American democracy and history that the Active Armed Forces should not be used to enforce State laws or to exercise police power reserved to the States unless absolutely necessary and as the very last resort. Therefore, I am pleased that this bill includes a provision that was overwhelmingly adopted during the markup to prohibit the use of DOD funds to take actions against U.S. citizens that would infringe on their First Amendment rights to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Senator Kaine of Virginia was instrumental in that bill, and Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut has additional legislation that is worthy of consideration. In addition, the bill includes an amendment adopted by voice vote that requires the Defense Department within 3 years to implement the recommendations of a commission on how to remove all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia from DOD assets that honor or commemorate the Confederacy. Such legislation is long overdue. Senior Department officials have all indicated they are open to changing these names. There is bipartisan cooperation on this issue. This is the right thing to do, and DOD needs to lead the way. To conclude, let me again commend Chairman Inhofe for his efforts in getting us to this point. Let me thank my colleagues especially for all of their hard work on getting this bill out of the committee. I look forward to an open debate on the floor, voting on amendments, and getting this legislation passed. I look forward--in fact, look back at the days when that was a routine procedure, when our Defense bill was a way in which many people from different committees and different aspects of the Senate could come forward and offer legislation. We could debate legislation, vote, move forward, and at the end have a piece of legislation that this entire Senate was extraordinarily proud of, and that is my hope for this year. With that, I thank you. I yield the floor I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with Senator Inhofe, Senator Jones, Senator Moran, and Senator Hyde-Smith, the DOE EPSCoR Modernization Act of 2020. As many of our colleagues are aware, the Department of Energy Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DOE EPSCoR) was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486). This critical initiative seeks to improve the capacity of eligible states to conduct nationally competitive energy research and connect eligible states with the National Laboratory System. The purpose of the bill we are introducing is to broaden the scope of the research funded by the DOE EPSCoR program beyond basic science, to encompass the full range of research supported by DOE. This includes cutting-edge research in applied energy technologies, energy efficiency, energy storage, and environmental management, to name a few key areas. Yet, because of the program's narrow focus on basic science, EPSCoR States are only able to support a small fraction of DOE's research mission. Our bill would continue to support investments in research infrastructure and expand opportunities for EPSCoR institutions to partner with National Laboratories to conduct their research. Our bill would also increase support for graduate students and early career faculty. When the National Academy of Sciences evaluated EPSCoR programs, it concluded that EPSCoR programs are critical to the nation's scientific and technology leadership, because EPSCoR helps ensure that talented researchers and scientists from all 50 states are partners in science and technology research. This is even truer in the context of energy issues, where each state and region faces different energy opportunities and infrastructure challenges. By modernizing the program and bringing it into alignment with EPSCoR programs operated by other agencies, DOE EPSCoR will be better positioned to meet today's energy challenges and align with the interests and strengths of EPSCoR states. I am pleased to have the support of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States in this effort, and I urge our colleagues to join us in pressing for passage of this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with Senator Inhofe, Senator Jones, Senator Moran, and Senator Hyde-Smith, the DOE EPSCoR Modernization Act of 2020. As many of our colleagues are aware, the Department of Energy Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DOE EPSCoR) was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486). This critical initiative seeks to improve the capacity of eligible states to conduct nationally competitive energy research and connect eligible states with the National Laboratory System. The purpose of the bill we are introducing is to broaden the scope of the research funded by the DOE EPSCoR program beyond basic science, to encompass the full range of research supported by DOE. This includes cutting-edge research in applied energy technologies, energy efficiency, energy storage, and environmental management, to name a few key areas. Yet, because of the program's narrow focus on basic science, EPSCoR States are only able to support a small fraction of DOE's research mission. Our bill would continue to support investments in research infrastructure and expand opportunities for EPSCoR institutions to partner with National Laboratories to conduct their research. Our bill would also increase support for graduate students and early career faculty. When the National Academy of Sciences evaluated EPSCoR programs, it concluded that EPSCoR programs are critical to the nation's scientific and technology leadership, because EPSCoR helps ensure that talented researchers and scientists from all 50 states are partners in science and technology research. This is even truer in the context of energy issues, where each state and region faces different energy opportunities and infrastructure challenges. By modernizing the program and bringing it into alignment with EPSCoR programs operated by other agencies, DOE EPSCoR will be better positioned to meet today's energy challenges and align with the interests and strengths of EPSCoR states. I am pleased to have the support of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States in this effort, and I urge our colleagues to join us in pressing for passage of this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague and chairman, Senator Inhofe, to discuss the fiscal year 2021 national defense authorization bill. I begin by thanking Senator Inhofe for his leadership in ensuring that we had a bill to consider this year. This was an extraordinary year. Social distancing just began as the Armed Services Committee was finishing our hearings and getting ready to go into the markup for the national defense authorization bill. Despite the uncertainty, the unusual challenges--the logistical challenges particularly--Senator Inhofe ensured that the bill was written and that the markup was held on schedule. He should be commended for this accomplishment. It is a tribute to his leadership, to his wisdom, to his common sense, and to his common decency. So thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I also want to take a moment to thank the staff. Both the chairman and I operate under the same rubric: They do the work, and we get the credit. It works for us--their work for us. They do a superb job. They found ways to draft the legislation. Yet they, too, were disrupted. Their work spaces were separated, and many had to work from home. So this has been an extraordinary achievement, and it is a tribute to their commitment, to their professionalism, to their skill, and to their collaborative, bipartisan effort. I thank them for that. As the Senator, the chairman, has said and emphasized several times ``bipartisanship.'' This has been the hallmark of this legislation for many, many years. We recall colleagues, going back to John Warner and Sam Nunn and others, who had the attitude that ``we have to work together.'' Again, let me give the chairman credit for preserving that attitude, for insisting upon that attitude, and for really getting, I think, the best out of the committee because of his example and of his setting a tone. We have differences in the bill, but we are strongly behind this effort. One of the things that I think we have been able to do is to figure out what might be a point of difference and that, if it comes to down to it, we take a vote, and we move on, and we get the bill done. That is what we did this time. We look forward to being on the floor and to doing the same thing--taking amendment proposals from our colleagues and trying to deal with them. If we can include them in the bill unanimously, that will be great. If we need a vote, I hope we can have debate and get a vote. We all understand that the bill provides the Defense Department with the resources it needs, particularly to ensure that the men and women who defend us have the resources they need not only to fight the fight but, when they return, to have a quality of life with their families themselves that is in keeping with their sacrifice and their service. This bill does that. It also funds at the caps set under the recently enacted Budget Control Act of about 2 years ago, so we are providing the much needed stability the Department needs. It will include many items that benefit the families and military members, and I will go into those details later in our discussion. Now, 2 weeks ago, the committee took up the bill in the markup. Again, under the leadership of the chairman, we had a very good day of discussion and debate, and the bill was adopted by the committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 25 to 2. This legislation is coming to the floor with overwhelming bipartisan support, and as the chairman indicated, one reason is that he solicited the input of all of the members. We and our staff tried very vigorously to incorporate those proposals and ideas of all members, and at the end of the day, it was a strong, overwhelming vote. But even though we did consider, as the chairman said, hundreds of different proposals by members of the committee and Members of the Senate, there are still issues that will come before us. That is why, on the floor, I hope we will have, as the chairman indicated, an open debate, that we will consider amendments--hopefully do so under reasonable time constraints so that we can get a lot done--and then, at the end of a vigorous debate, be able to vote for a bill that will advance the welfare of the men and women who serve and advance the common defense, which is our constitutional responsibility. Again, I thank Senator Inhofe and look forward to the consideration of this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, for the past week, our Nation has been engulfed by protests in dozens of cities over the senseless murder of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of police officers. Americans are angry, frustrated, and grieving, not just for Mr. Floyd's and Ms. Taylor's deaths but for centuries of injustice and brutality against African Americans. The instances are too numerous to count. Yet these instances of violence keep happening while meaningful reforms have not taken place. The protests are set against the backdrop of the deadly novel coronavirus pandemic. As our country copes with this crisis, African- American communities have suffered disproportionately high infection and death rates. Compounding this tragedy, we are in the midst of an economic downturn that rivals the Great Depression, with communities of color bearing the brunt of the economic fallout. Millions of hard- working Americans have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They are struggling to provide for their families, put food on their table, and keep a roof over their head. These protests are not isolated. They are taking place in every State in the Nation and in many other countries. Protesters are of every race and ethnicity and run the gamut in age from high school and college students to parents and grandparents. The people participating in these protests represent the diversity that is the strength of America. The overwhelming majority of these protests are emotional but nonviolent. They embrace a fundamental tenant of civil engagement, which is the American right and tradition of peacefully protesting to make their voices heard and to rectify injustice. On the fringes of these peaceful protests, there are opportunists who are sowing mistrust and division. Their primary goal is to loot and destroy property, that cause chaos that puts innocent lives in harm's way. Let me state clearly, theft and looting are a crime. They are unacceptable and undermine the powerful message of thousands demanding justice and change. They offer an easy way out to those who would rather turn away from this challenge of justice and simply indulge in their own petty objectives of violence, diversion, and destruction. Our Nation is in pain. We need leaders who bring calm, unity, empathy, and aid. Instead, our Nation has a President who treats it as a field of war. He does not even attempt to bring people together, to listen to others, or to accept the reality that leaders in a democracy are neither infallible nor omnipotent. In a tweet on May 30, President Trump said: Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis will never be mistaken for the late, great Douglas McArthur or great fighter General George Patton. . . . Get tough and fight. In a call with our Nation's Governors, Secretary of Defense Esper said: ``I think the sooner that you mass and dominate the battlespace, the quicker this dissipates and we can get back to the right normal.'' These are American city streets that we are talking about, filled with Americans exercising their rights, not battlefields filled with the enemy. Then, in a statement in the White House Rose Garden on June 1, President Trump said: ``If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.'' America learned shortly thereafter what actions the President was prepared to take. The U.S. Park Police and others near Lafayette Park used tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and rubber bullets to aggressively push back a peaceful crowd 30 minutes before the DC curfew went into effect. Why was this assault undertaken? It wasn't to step inside St. John's Church and offer a prayer for George Floyd, his family, or the countless other Americans who have been victims of police brutality. It wasn't to reflect on the pain and division that is rife within our country and contemplate what actions he could take to heal our Nation, like President Lincoln often did during the Civil War. The President crossed a street, aggressively cleared of peaceful protesters for a photo op that was meant to say he was strong, and he was in charge. Unfortunately, for him, it had the opposite effect. President Trump's rhetoric and some of the events that have occurred are not ones that many of us ever thought we would see on American streets or hear from an American President. They are the words and actions that happen in authoritarian states, words and actions that past American Presidents have condemned. They are words and actions that violate the democratic norms our Nation has stood for and American servicemembers have died for. While the President does have the authority to call up military personnel under the Insurrection Act, it does not mean he should. It was last invoked in 1992 when California Governor Pete Wilson requested Federal military assistance from President George Herbert Walker Bush to respond to the L.A. riots following the acquittal of police officers for the beating of Rodney King. Before that instance, the act was invoked in the 1950s and 1960s to enforce civil rights laws and end segregation in the South. The Insurrection Act serves as an exception to posse comitatus and to the broad principle embedded deeply in American democracy and history that the Active Armed Forces should not be used to enforce State laws or to exercise police power reserved to the States unless absolutely necessary as a last resort. The act is, by design and tradition, rarely invoked. The Insurrection Act envisions that, when Active military forces are used to supplement State police forces to enforce State laws, they do so only at the request of the Governor or legislature, which is ultimately responsible for the execution of the laws within the States. In the present moment, I am not aware of any Governor or legislature calling for the Federal Government to step in and take control. Put simply, if they need help, I have no doubt they will ask for it. The President's ability to invoke the Insurrection Act without the Governor or State legislature requesting assistance rests on the need to enforce or protect Federal law, which is not the case here. If President Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act today, absent a request from a State, it would only be to further his own political interests. He would be using Active military forces as a political and propaganda tool in contravention of everything our military stands for. Using the Insurrection Act on a whim risks politicizing the military. The military's mission is to defend and serve the Constitution and the American people regardless of who is in office. Bringing the military into domestic politics risks a rupture in the sacred trust between the civilian and military leadership and undermines fundamental American values. As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Martin Dempsey stated shortly after the 2016 Presidential conventions, ``If senior military leaders--active and retired--begin to self-identify as members or supporters of one party or another, then the inherent tension built into our system of government between the executive branch and the legislative branch will bleed over into suspicion of military leaders by Congress and a further erosion of civil-military relations.'' Over the last few years, that erosion has increased steadily as recent events have made eminently clear. This erosion is a toxic force that will undermine one of the most essential ethics of the American military. Soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and coastguardsmen serve the Constitution, not the President. That is the oath many of us took as young men and women. That is the oath that defines the military of the United States, unlike many other countries, fortunately, for us. According to press reports, Secretary of Defense Esper told senior military leaders to ``stay apolitical during these turbulent days,'' but I would urge Secretary Esper to heed his own advice. Traditionally, the Secretary of Defense, while a Cabinet member and appointed by the President, has taken a nonpolitical stand--staying away from campaign events and avoiding even the potential of a political photo op. As General Milley discovered Monday evening, once the civilian leader of the military joins the political fray, it is difficult for the military to stay neutral. Our Nation is in crisis, but it is not a crisis that can or should be solved by American military force against its own citizens. I think, if you ask any young man or woman who took the oath to join the forces of the United States--whatever branch--was he or she doing it to go fight Americans, they would answer no. He or she is doing everything they can to protect Americans, to protect the system of government, and, ultimately, the Constitution. That is the oath we take. The strength of this Nation and of the great American experiment in representative democracy goes far beyond our military strength. It goes to our civil traditions, our Constitution, our sense of civic responsibility, and our ability to constantly evolve and improve ourselves even from our earliest days stained with slavery. We need leaders who will listen and commit to change and then implement that change. We need leaders who will not exacerbate the problem but will seek to solve it and bring people together as our greatest Presidents have done throughout history. In short, we need leaders who are builders, not destroyers, and until those leaders emerge, I am afraid the tumult will continue. It is my fervent hope that this Nation finds a way to peace soon. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I want to join my friends in the Armenian community in solemnly observing the 105th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. While we could not commemorate the Armenian Genocide in Rhode Island as we normally would due to the pandemic, I know we are united in our belief in the bright future and resilience of the Armenian people. More than a century ago, one of the worst tragedies of the 20th century began when the Young Turk leaders of the Ottoman Empire executed more than 200 prominent Armenians. What followed was an 8-year campaign of massacre and oppression. By 1923, an estimated one and a half million Armenians were killed and over a half a million survivors were exiled. These atrocities affected the lives of every Armenian living in Asia Minor and across the globe. The U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during this dark time, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., unsuccessfully pleaded with President Wilson to take action and later remembered the events of the Genocide, saying, ``I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.'' Those who survived the Armenian Genocide, however, persevered due to their unbreakable spirit. Survivors of the Armenian Genocide contributed greatly to the lands in which they established new homes and communities, including the United States. That is why we not only commemorate this grave tragedy each year, but also take the time to celebrate the traditions and the contributions of the Armenian people. Indeed, my home State of Rhode Island continues to be enriched by our strong and vibrant Armenian-American community. I was pleased when a resolution to encourage the U.S. to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide passed the Senate in December. We must find a way to come together to recognize the truth of what happened, and support and assist those facing persecution today. As ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I also remain committed to supporting assistance to Armenia to strengthen security, promote economic growth, and foster democratic reforms and development. As we remember the past, we remain committed to forging a brighter future. We must continue to guard against hatred and oppression so that we can prevent such crimes against humanity from happening again. Thank you.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, in order to build on a key provision I authored in the CARES Act, which provided states with $150 billion in Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF), I am introducing the State and Local Emergency Stabilization Fund Act so that States and local governments can continue to be supported as they shoulder the costs of battling the corona virus. The State and Local Emergency Stabilization Fund Act would cut needless red tape that was bureaucratically imposed by the Trump Administration, which is constraining States from spending the CRF money that Congress unanimously approved to save lives and help rescue our economy. My legislation makes it clear that lost revenue is a cost. It also extends the time horizon States have to spend the money in order to ensure they have the flexibility to equitably allocate and disburse the funding and help communities combat COVID-19 and recover. Unfortunately, the costs of responding to the coronavirus and keeping our economy afloat have only increased as result of this Administration's inability to formulate and execute a public health strategy based on facts and science, or implement effectively the resources and programs Congress authorized to keep our economy afloat. To meet these increasing costs, this bill would provide State and local governments an additional $600 billion in funding. The bill includes a protective $5 billion small State minimum, treats the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Kico as States, and reserves funds for territories and Tribes. In addition, $59 billion would be allocated to States based on their relative coronavirus infection rates, and $205 billion would be reserved elusively for local governments. State and local governments are being pushed to the financial brink by skyrocketing costs and plunging revenue, and they need stability in order to have a chance at recovery. While some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to paint this issue as a `red State vs. blue State' problem, all fifty States are suffering and need financial relief from the Federal government to prevent massive layoffs, cuts to needed services, and future tax hikes. In addition, on May 6, 2020, CNBC reported ``[p]rivate payrolls hemorrhaged more than 20 million jobs in April as companies sliced workers amid a corona virus-induced shutdown that took most of the U.S. economy offline, according to a report Wednesday from ADP. In all, the decline totaled 20,236,000--easily the worst loss in the survey's history going back to 2002 but not as bad as the 22 million that economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting. The previous record was 834,665 in February 2009 amid the financial crisis and accompanying Great Recession.'' Mr. President, the scale and pace of our public health emergency and the impact it has having on our economy requires each of us to swiftly set aside ideology and work urgently to address these generational challenges head on. Failure to respond in a timely manner will only result in more layoffs and a longer recession. It will mean States and local governments will be left unable to provide needed health, education, public safety, and sanitation services, just when those services are needed most. Any economic recovery needs reliable State and local governments that provide the business certainty that make our attractive to businesses and investors throughout the world. Nobody is immune from this crisis. Congress should come together, do the right thing, and provide States the resources they need to save lives and livelihoods and get the economy working again. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in working to enact this legislation so that we can get more critical federal resources to our States and local governments who are on the front lines of battling this public health and economic emergency.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Strengthening UI for Coronavirus Impacted Workers and Students Act. For the 30 million American unemployed workers, the enhanced jobless benefits created in the CARES Act are a lifeline. However, the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation, which provides a $600-per-week benefit on top of an individual's regular unemployment insurance (UI) benefits are set to expire on July 31, 2020. Arbitrarily cutting these benefits off in the midst of an ongoing pandemic could make a desperate situation worse for individuals and harm the economy. Moreover, if these workers are prematurely pushed back into unsafe work environments, it will ultimately harm families, businesses, and communities. That is why my new legislation seeks to expand and enhance the unemployment insurance of the CARES Act. Specifically, this bill would continue to offer out-of-work Americans the $600-per-week additional benefit through the end of the year and make it retroactive to the date of the coronavirus pandemic disaster declaration date. This legislation would also exempt these pandemic-specific benefits from being factored into eligibility for means-tested programs, such as Section 8 housing, SNAP, TANF, and WIC. Furthermore, it would create a $300 Federal benefit for recent college graduates, students, and others who are willing and able to work absent COVID-19. but who do not have recent work history. Finally, this legislation would codify guidance by the Department of Labor requiring employees who are participating in ``work sharing'' programs to be able to receive the $600-per-work boost. I added provisions to the CARES Act to Federally finance these cost- effective and job saving ``work sharing'' programs, which give struggling companies the flexibility to reduce hours instead of laying off their workforce, while allowing the employees to collect unemployment insurance on the days they are not working. The bill is supported by numerous organizations including the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Education Association (NEA), National Employment Law Project (NELP), National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), The Arc, United Auto Workers (UAW), National Alliance on Mental Illness. National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, and National Women's Law Center. We have to be smart and this targeted, temporary measure will help ensure Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own can afford food, housing, and medicine until it is safe to go back to work. I am pleased to join my colleague in the other body, Representative Kildee, in sponsoring this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues here and across the Capitol to secure passage of this important legislation.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, along with Senators Brown, Tester, Schatz, Jones, Smith, Warren, Sinema, Warner, Menendez, Van Hollen, Cortez Masto, Kaine, Udall, Booker, Feinstein, Durbin, Merkley, and Wyden, I am introducing legislation that would create a $75 billion Housing Assistance Fund that builds on the success of the Hardest Hit Fund at the Treasury Department that I championed in 2010. The Hardest Hit Fund provided funds to 18 State-level Housing Finance Agencies, directing targeted foreclosure prevention assistance to households and neighborhoods in States like Rhode Island hit hard by the economic and housing market downturn. The Housing Assistance Fund expands this model to provide a flexible source Federal aid to all State-level Housing Finance Agencies. This Federal funding could then be used to help struggling households remain in their homes while they search for new employment or wait to get back to work. Financial assistance could go towards preventing eviction, mortgage delinquency, default, foreclosures, or loss of utility services, such as water, gas, and electricity. Funds could also be used to keep the Internet connected and remain current with property taxes. In the midst of responding to the coronavirus, we clearly need to do everything we can to help our constituents. According to CNBC, 8.7 million jobs were lost in the Great Recession, and as of April 23, 2020, more than 26 million Americans filed unemployment insurance claims in just five weeks. Just for comparative purposes, CNBC also reported that 22.4 million jobs were created since the Great Recession. This means we're facing job losses at an unprecedented scale and pace. What this also means is that we could be facing a potential wave of evictions and foreclosures, so there is no time to waste. We should respond accordingly so that more families can make it to the other side of this public health emergency while staying safe in their homes. This is precisely the goal of this Housing Assistance Fund legislation we are introducing today. I thank the National Council of State Housing Agencies; Habitat for Humanity; National Housing Conference; National Community Reinvestment Coalition; National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders; National Leased Housing Association; Americans for Financial Reform; National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients; Center for Responsible Lending; Rhode Island Housing; and the Rhode Island Association of Realtors for their support. I urge all of my colleagues to join in pressing for inclusion of the Housing Assistance Fund in our continued response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by several of my colleagues in introducing the Layoff Prevention Extension Act and the Preventing Layoffs During a Public Health Emergency Act. Both bills would renew Federal support for State short-time compensation--or work sharing--programs and provide assistance for States to adopt and improve existing programs in law. The latter bill would specifically activate financing for work sharing programs when there is a public health emergency. The coronavirus has officially reached a pandemic level, with an increasing impact on individual lives, communities, and businesses across the United States. Last week, I was pleased that the Senate voted on an overwhelming bipartisan basis to approve nearly $8 billion in supplemental funding for public health agencies to respond to this outbreak, but that was only the down payment. While Congress has taken initial steps to address coronavirus as a public health crisis and stop the spread of COVID-19, it is also important to support the workers, students, families, and businesses that are already being impacted as this outbreak ripples across the economy. In response to a reduced workforce due to workers that are ill, quarantined, or have new caregiving duties, companies that are losing business may need to lay off workers--even those that are healthy, if they are unable to keep their doors open. We need to extend emergency UI benefits, but just as importantly, we should incentivize employers to not lay off workers for what we hope will be a temporary public health emergency. That is where work sharing can play a critical role, as it encourages, through the UI system, employers and employees to voluntarily reduce hours instead of laying people off. The concept of work sharing is simple--it provides an alternative to help businesses that are experiencing a temporary slowdown the chance to retain employees on a less than full-time basis. By giving struggling companies the flexibility to reduce hours instead of their workforce, work sharing programs prevent layoffs and help employers save money on rehiring costs. All the while, workers who otherwise would be in danger of losing their jobs completely--would keep their jobs instead, with the UI system making up for lost wages. According to the Department of Labor, work sharing saved approximately 570,000 jobs in the wake of the Great Recession (2008- 2015). As part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, Congress enacted my Layoff Prevention Act of 2012, which provided temporary Federal financing for 100 percent of work sharing benefits paid to workers. States also received -1/grants for implementation, improved administration, and program enrollment efforts. This assistance helped save over 130,000 jobs from 2012 to its sunset in 2015. Multiple studies have found that communities that adopted more robust work-sharing programs weathered the recession with lower unemployment rates. But even more jobs could have been saved if these programs had been in place before business slowed down. The legislation I am introducing today would address the current public health emergency and help soften the blow of future slowdowns. The Preventing Layoffs During a Public Health Emergency Act would provide financing to States with and without formal work sharing laws during the period of a public health emergency, and up to one year after the termination of the emergency. The Layoff Prevention Act would provide a more permanent solution to give States an incentive to expand their work sharing programs to prevent future layoffs and blunt economic downturns. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Whitehouse and Sanders in supporting passage of both bills to keep American workers on the job, save taxpayers money, and provide employers with a practical, positive, and cost-effective alternative to layoffs.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am joined by several of my colleagues in introducing the Layoff Prevention Extension Act and the Preventing Layoffs During a Public Health Emergency Act. Both bills would renew Federal support for State short-time compensation--or work sharing--programs and provide assistance for States to adopt and improve existing programs in law. The latter bill would specifically activate financing for work sharing programs when there is a public health emergency. The coronavirus has officially reached a pandemic level, with an increasing impact on individual lives, communities, and businesses across the United States. Last week, I was pleased that the Senate voted on an overwhelming bipartisan basis to approve nearly $8 billion in supplemental funding for public health agencies to respond to this outbreak, but that was only the down payment. While Congress has taken initial steps to address coronavirus as a public health crisis and stop the spread of COVID-19, it is also important to support the workers, students, families, and businesses that are already being impacted as this outbreak ripples across the economy. In response to a reduced workforce due to workers that are ill, quarantined, or have new caregiving duties, companies that are losing business may need to lay off workers--even those that are healthy, if they are unable to keep their doors open. We need to extend emergency UI benefits, but just as importantly, we should incentivize employers to not lay off workers for what we hope will be a temporary public health emergency. That is where work sharing can play a critical role, as it encourages, through the UI system, employers and employees to voluntarily reduce hours instead of laying people off. The concept of work sharing is simple--it provides an alternative to help businesses that are experiencing a temporary slowdown the chance to retain employees on a less than full-time basis. By giving struggling companies the flexibility to reduce hours instead of their workforce, work sharing programs prevent layoffs and help employers save money on rehiring costs. All the while, workers who otherwise would be in danger of losing their jobs completely--would keep their jobs instead, with the UI system making up for lost wages. According to the Department of Labor, work sharing saved approximately 570,000 jobs in the wake of the Great Recession (2008- 2015). As part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, Congress enacted my Layoff Prevention Act of 2012, which provided temporary Federal financing for 100 percent of work sharing benefits paid to workers. States also received -1/grants for implementation, improved administration, and program enrollment efforts. This assistance helped save over 130,000 jobs from 2012 to its sunset in 2015. Multiple studies have found that communities that adopted more robust work-sharing programs weathered the recession with lower unemployment rates. But even more jobs could have been saved if these programs had been in place before business slowed down. The legislation I am introducing today would address the current public health emergency and help soften the blow of future slowdowns. The Preventing Layoffs During a Public Health Emergency Act would provide financing to States with and without formal work sharing laws during the period of a public health emergency, and up to one year after the termination of the emergency. The Layoff Prevention Act would provide a more permanent solution to give States an incentive to expand their work sharing programs to prevent future layoffs and blunt economic downturns. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Whitehouse and Sanders in supporting passage of both bills to keep American workers on the job, save taxpayers money, and provide employers with a practical, positive, and cost-effective alternative to layoffs.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have my opinion memorandum in the impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to offer my amendment noting that as a result of Iran's recent ballistic missile strike against U.S. air bases in Iraq, over 100 servicemembers have sustained traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs, as a result of their proximity to the blasts. It is vitally important that all U.S. Government personnel--military and civilian--who incur such injuries be given the care they deserve and that their medical records be properly annotated to ensure they receive the care they are entitled to in the future. My amendment recognizes the seriousness of these injuries and honors those who will now have to deal with these wounds, possibly for the rest of their lives. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my concerns with respect to Iran and to express my support for the Kaine resolution, of which I am a cosponsor. No American mourns the death of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, and my thoughts remain with the servicemembers who were injured by Iran's retaliatory ballistic missile attacks in Iraq. The President was wrong to diminish their wounds by referring to them as ``headaches.'' Traumatic brain injuries are serious, and the President's comments undermine efforts to educate our military personnel about their potentially lasting consequences. Unfortunately, the President still does not seem to grasp that his words and actions have real consequences. Tensions with Iran and the potential for miscalculation remain exceptionally high. We are likely in a period of calm before the storm. No serious analyst doubts there will be a future Iranian violent reaction to the death of Soleimani and continued pressure by the United States. This temporary calm is the result of several factors. First, Soleimani's death has caused a disruption in the command and control of the IRGC Quds Force. He is not irreplaceable, but he is very difficult to replace. Second, Iran's principle objective in Iraq is to expel the United States, to get them to leave Iraq. The killing of Soleimani has given Iran political leverage it did not imagine, and violence at this time could dissipate that advantage, especially as Iraqi political leadership remains in flux. Finally, the tragic downing of the Ukrainian airliner swiftly reversed an outpouring of nationalistic ardor in Iran, with renewed criticism of the Ayatollah. Again, Iranian violence in Iraq or elsewhere at this time could exacerbate internal opposition. The Iranians are likely to continue to act via proxies. For example, Iranian-backed Shia militia in Iraq have signaled their intent to avenge the death of Popular Mobilization Forces Deputy Commander Muhandis, who was killed along with Soleimani. Our national security interests related to Iran, Iraq, and the counter-ISIS campaign are on a negative trajectory because of the administration's policies and the impulsive decision making we have seen. Since coming into office, the Trump administration has waged a maximum pressure campaign against Iran that has included crippling sanctions, the unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, and now the killing of Soleimani. Secretary Pompeo and the President have stated that the goal of this campaign is allegedly to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but it instead has had the opposite effect of driving Iran so far into a corner that it now sees little downside to escalating and direct conflict with our country. In addition, the ripple effect of the so- called maximum pressure campaign has resulted in the following: the disruption of counterterrorism operations in Syria and Iraq to defeat ISIS; the direction from the Iraqi Parliament to remove U.S. troops from Iraq; the resumption of Iran's nuclear program; and the growing diplomatic distance of the United States from our traditional allies and partners. That is not what anyone would call a win. It should be clear to all that these policies are not working. The administration continues to let events in the region dictate our response rather than proactively and strategically shaping them, in collaboration with our allies and partners, in a way that benefits U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives. We should take the opportunity now to step back from the brink of conflict, engage in real diplomacy with Iran, and to rebuild our relationship with Iraq. We need a diplomatic channel, either directly or through third parties, to avoid miscalculation on either side that could lead to military conflict. Such efforts in Iraq, however, have been made all the more difficult because of our reduced diplomatic presence in Baghdad. Indeed, according to the inspector general for Operation Inherent Resolve, the State Department has indicated that--in his words--``the ordered departure . . . has affected all operations of Mission Iraq, and has limited the Mission's ability to help Iraq become a more resilient, independent, democratic country, and to support counter-ISIS efforts.'' Unfortunately, the situation at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq is indicative of our country's entire diplomatic structure, which has been hollowed out and hampered at every turn. I am particularly concerned that Secretary Pompeo has not assumed the traditional role of the Secretary of State in advocating for diplomatic options but, instead, has been the loudest voice in the administration for violence and confrontation. Weaponizing diplomacy as the first step, rather than the last, is a sure path to diplomatic failure. War with Iran is not inevitable, but the risk that we stumble into conflict because of the President's misguided policies has never been higher. As dictated by the Constitution, the decision to take the Nation to war rests solely with the Congress. The Kaine resolution is an important step in preserving the constitutional role of Congress in matters of national security. Some have argued that Congress should not debate the issues of hostilities with Iran. They claim that questioning the President's policies means one is not an opponent of the Iranian regime. I wholeheartedly disagree. Before being sent to war, our troops deserve to know that the Nation has determined the objectives of the armed conflict to be valid and worthy of their potential sacrifice. Our military men and women deserve to know that they have a clear mission and that they have the full backing of not only the Congress but also the American people whom we represent. The administration not only owes the American people a transparent explanation for escalating conflict with Iran but also a credible strategy to conclude hostilities, if they occur, and ensure an enduring peace. As we have painfully experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan over much of the last two decades, securing the peace is no easy task. I am also deeply troubled by the evolving and, at times, contradictory justifications offered by the administration for the killing of Soleimani. Even in a highly classified briefing to Senators following the strike on Soleimani, the administration failed to provide relevant details. There is simply no justification for refusing to share intelligence with Congress that underpins the administration's assessment that Soleimani posed an ``imminent threat'' to Americans in the region. Determining imminence requires a careful and thorough analysis of both the immediate intent and the immediate capabilities of the enemy. The administration has not provided a sufficient response to the Senate on either point. The President has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness not just to bend the facts but to indulge in outright fabrications. This behavior is particularly concerning and unacceptable when it may result in the deployment of troops into harm's way. Congress has a responsibility to demand and, if necessary, challenge the basis for assertions that could be used to take this country to war. We must not repeat the mistakes that led us to war in Iraq in 2003. I voted against that conflict, in part because I believed it was an unnecessary war of choice and the Bush administration had not provided the American people with a sober assessment of the likely costs or the nature of the threat. Going to war in Iraq took our focus off the priority effort to defeat al-Qaida and consolidate gains in Afghanistan, a decision that has contributed to our inability to secure the country in the years since. Once again, we are risking an avoidable conflict in the Middle East at the expense of our efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS and to place increased emphasis on the great power competition with China and Russia, in line with the National Defense Strategy. Conflict with Iran is not a hypothetical proposition given the steadily escalating cycle of violence we have witnessed over the past 2 years, which has ultimately led to the outbreak of conventional military action between the United States and Iran involving the killing of Soleimani and Iran's retaliatory ballistic missile strikes in Iraq. Iran has also announced that it will no longer comply with constraints placed on its nuclear program by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA, likely resulting in a reduction of the so-called ``breakout'' timeline for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, President Trump has declared repeatedly that he will not allow Iran to acquire such a weapon. Absent capitulation by Iran or a change in course by the administration, the President appears to be creating a situation wherein his only option is military action when it comes to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, we have received no assurances that this administration would consult with Congress and seek authorization in advance if it believed it needed to take such military action. Congress cannot stand idly by as the President careens toward possible conflict. The potential of conflict with Iran has already upended the priorities outlined in the President's own National Defense Strategy, led to the deployment of nearly 20,000 U.S. troops to the region in the last year, disrupted our operations against ISIS, and made Americans less safe. The administration's ill-conceived approach has not worked, and the time has come to try real and sustained diplomacy rather than relying on blind faith in the power of coercion. I urge the President to change course and engage with our allies and partners with the goal of seeking a diplomatic solution to the current situation immediately. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate is called upon to uphold our oath of office and our duty to the Constitution because President Trump failed to do so himself. After listening closely to the impeachment managers and the President's defense team, weighing the evidence that was presented to us, and being denied the opportunity to see relevant documents and hear from firsthand witnesses, I will vote to find President Trump guilty on both Articles of Impeachment. I take no pleasure in voting to impeach a President and remove him from office. I agree with those who say that impeachment should be rare and American voters should decide our elections. That is why it is so galling that President Trump blatantly solicited foreign interference in our democratic process. And he did it as he geared up for reelection. The evidence shows President Trump deliberately and illicitly sought foreign help to manufacture a scandal that would elevate him by tarnishing a political rival. He attempted to undermine our democracy, using U.S. taxpayer money in the form of U.S. military aid for Ukraine as leverage for his own personal benefit. The President's aides who heard President Trump's call seeking ``a favor'' from the Ukrainian President immediately sensed it was wrong. So when they alerted the White House lawyers, the record of the call was immediately placed on a highly classified computer system. And despite the President claiming that the version of the call that was publicly released ``is an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation,'' we know from testimony that there are key omissions in the document we all read. Compounding the President's misconduct, he then engaged in an extended cover up that appears to be ongoing to this day. There is a lot to unravel here, and I will provide a more detailed legal explanation in the near future. But for now, let me briefly explain my decision and outline my thoughts on the Senate's impeachment proceedings and the disturbing precedents I fear will be set when the majority chooses to side with the President over the Constitution's checks and balances. The House of Representatives voted to impeach the President for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Based on the uncontested evidence, I concur. It is clear that President Trump and others, such as Mr. Giuliani, who was serving as the President's lawyer, attempted to coerce the newly elected President of Ukraine to announce two sham investigations, including one that sought to directly damage President Trump's rival in the upcoming election. The President's actions served his personal and political needs, not those of our country. His efforts to withhold military aid to Ukraine for his own personal benefit undermined our national security. The second article of impeachment charges the President with obstruction of Congress for blocking testimony and refusing to provide documents in response to House subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry. Again, the House managers produced overwhelming evidence of the President's obstruction and his efforts to cover up his malfeasance. The President's counsel offered a number of unpersuasive arguments against this article, which fail to overcome the following: first, that the legislative branch has sole power over impeachment under the Constitution. That could not be more clear; second, past precedents of prior administrations and court rulings; and third, the blatant October 8 letter expressing a complete rejection of the House's impeachment proceedings. The Constitution grants the executive branch significant power, but as every student in America learns, our system is one of checks and balances so that no branch is entirely unfettered from oversight and the law. President Trump would have us believe this system of checks and balances is wrong. In President Trump's own words, he expressed the misguided imperial belief in the supremacy of his unchecked power, stating, quote: ``I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.'' Couple this sentiment with his January 2016 boast that, quote: ``I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.'' That paints a chilling picture of someone who clearly believes, incorrectly, that he is above the law. The President's attorneys have hewn to this line of faulty reasoning and, in one notably preposterous effort, even claimed the President could avoid impeachment for an inappropriate action motivated entirely by his own political and personal interests. The President's defense also failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the President's blanket defiance of subpoenas and document requests overcomes the precedents established in prior impeachment proceedings and the record of congressional oversight of the executive branch. In the Clinton impeachment, there was an enormous amount of documentary evidence, as well as sworn depositions and testimony by the President and his closest advisers. In the cases of United States v. Nixon, House Judiciary Committee v. Miers, and others, the House managers rightly point out that the courts have held ``Congress's power to investigate is as broad as its power to legislate and lies at the heart of Congress's constitutional role.'' While President Trump's impeachment lawyers claim the House should take the President to court over these previously settled issues, President Trump's lawyers at the Justice Department are simultaneously arguing in the courts that the judicial branch cannot even rule on such matters. As President Trump staked out new, expansive, and aggressive positions about executive privilege, immunity, and the limits of Congress's oversight authority, Republican leaders went along with it. I have heard a variety of explanations for why my Republican colleagues voted against witnesses. But no one has offered the simplest explanation: My Republican colleagues did not want to hear new evidence because they have a hunch it would be really, really bad for this President. It would further expose the depth of his wrongdoing. And it would make it harder for them to vote to acquit. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not ask to be put in this position. President Trump's misconduct forced it on them. But in the partisan rush to spare President Trump from having his staff and former staff publicly testify against him under oath, a bar has been lowered, a constitutional guardrail has been removed, the Senate has been voluntarily weakened, and our oversight powers severely diminished. This short-term maneuver to shield President Trump from the truth is a severe blow against good government that will do lasting damage to this institution and our democracy. I hope one day the damage can be repaired. The arc of history is indeed long, and it does bend toward justice-- but not today. Today, the Senate and the American people have been denied access to relevant, available evidence and firsthand witnesses. We have been prohibited from considering new, material information that became available after the House's impeachment vote. The Constitution is our national compass. But at this critical moment, clouded by the fog of President Trump's misconduct, the Senate majority has lost its way, and is no longer guided by the Constitution. In order to regain our moral bearings, stay true to our core values, and navigate a better path forward, we must hold President Trump accountable. The President was wrong to invite foreign interference in our democracy. He was wrong to try and stonewall the investigation. And he is wrong if he thinks he is above the law. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of Senators Duckworth and Harris and myself for the House managers and for the President's counsel.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a pioneer in the field of military medicine, retired Army COL Dr. Robert J.T. Joy. Colonel Joy was founding professor of military medicine and commandant of the School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University, USU. Most recently, he served as professor emeritus of USU's Section of Military Medical History. He passed away last year at the age of 90. Born in Rhode Island and raised between Narragansett, RI, and St. Petersburg, FL, he studied pre-med and pre-law at the University of Rhode Island, before attending Yale University Medical School on a Reserve medical officers training scholarship. From there, his service to his country began. After assignments stateside, Dr. Joy volunteered to lead the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, WRAIR, team to Vietnam, where he received his first--of four--Legion of Merit medals and his team received a Meritorious Unit Citation for their field research. After becoming Deputy Director and then Director of WRAIR, many thought he had found his dream job. However, after a meeting with Dr. Jay Sanford, the first dean of USU, in 1976, Colonel Joy received a transfer to take the position of professor of military medicine and commandant of the School of Medicine at the newly created USU. While there, he was instrumental in the creation of the field of military medical history, and his teachings, lectures, and leadership were integral to the development of today's ``joint'' concept of military medicine. Dr. Joy retired from Active Duty in 1981 and was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal for his Army career. He continued to teach as a civilian professor until 2005, and his legacy lives on through his students--the physicians and surgical teams that continue to provide world-class care for our wounded, ill, and injured service members. I would like to close with a quote about Dr. Joy from retired Army BG Robert Doughty, professor and chair of history at the United States Military Academy at West Point: ``His contribution has influenced, and will continue to influence, students, historians, and soldiers for decades to come.'' I salute Dr. Joy and extend my condolences to his family.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today we consider these amendments to NAFTA. I opposed the original NAFTA in 1993 because I believed it would kill American jobs and failed to protect the environment. I oppose this version now, because it does not substantially improve on what was a bad deal all those years ago. I appreciate the concessions my colleagues were able to force President Trump to accept that strengthen protections for workers, but at the end of the day, these changes don't go far enough. I am concerned that this trade agreement could continue NAFTA's suppression of wages here at home instead of lifting them. This agreement also doesn't prioritize protecting our environment and will contribute to environmental damage and degradation, and it will continue President Trump's failed economic priorities that primarily benefit the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of hard-working, middle-class, and blue collar taxpayers. A well-crafted free trade deal should provide reciprocal benefits, contain sufficient labor standards that preserve and create jobs here at home, and include environmental and other protections to ensure that trade is conducted fairly. If well-crafted, trade policy can be a vital part of our economic and security efforts. Ideally, it would serve to achieve our Nation's policy objectives. The simple fact is that there are winners and there are losers in any trade agreement. The loss of economic security as a result of trade agreement after trade agreement over decades stems from a frequent failure to provide guaranteed and significant assistance to dislocated workers and small businesses that are negatively impacted by increased trade. A little money for training in a massive economy just hasn't cut it. In. 1993, I thought that NAFTA failed this test and as a result would be bad for Rhode Island's workers, manufacturers, and small businesses. I outlined a number of concerns at the time. I believed that NAFTA would increase incentives for companies to move factories and outsource jobs to Mexico--depressing wages for American workers. I also worried that the conditions on the ground in Mexico and the disposition of its government were not conducive to a free-trade agreement. Sadly, many of these concerns were later realized. NAFTA, along with increased globalization, certainly contributed to stagnating wages, loss of jobs, and a diminishing manufacturing base. Businesses outsourced jobs and moved factories to Mexico where costs and wages were lower. Labor standards were not adequate or enforced and workers were taken advantage of. Additionally, there were lax environmental standards, further incentivizing businesses to move jobs to Mexico, and which have proven harmful to our environment. Alternating between threatening to withdraw from NAFTA and imposing tariffs on dubious national security grounds, President Trump damaged critical relationships for, at best, marginal gains. That is what is so confounding. Out of the very chaos that President Trump has sown, we could have emerged with a much better, stronger NAFTA but that is not where we find ourselves. According to a report conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission, USITC, released in April, the USITC forecasts that the new NAFTA ``would raise U.S. real GDP by $68.2 billion (0.35 percent) and U.S. employment by 176,000 jobs (0.12 percent)'' once implemented, years in the future. While each new job is critically important, these projections in no way match the rhetoric that President Trump spins and demonstrate that the new NAFTA is essentially the same as the old NAFTA from an economic perspective. It is also not clear that jobs lost as a result of NAFTA will be recovered, as has been claimed by some of the new NAFTA's proponents. Similarly, I believe that many of the concerns that I had with NAFTA and other trade agreements remain, particularly with respect to the protection of workers and our environment and ensuring tough enforcement mechanisms. I note the absence of a specific and robust Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to assist workers negatively impacted by increased trade in the implementing legislation--such assistance was at least included in 1993. The implementing legislation contains $843 million dollars in new spending. This includes resources to enforce environmental and labor standards in Mexico. Yet it does not include funding to assist American workers and small businesses who are negatively impacted by trade. As a result of any trade agreement, there are those who benefit and those who are hurt. We should always insist that there are sufficient provisions to assist workers who will lose out. Environmental standards and protections were inadequately accounted for in 1993, and the fact that they are not sufficiently stringent here is very disappointing. Climate change is having a serious impact on our environment and our economy. Safeguarding the environment is the right thing to do. It also helps ensure our workers can compete on an even playing field. Jobs are typically outsourced because it is cheaper to do business somewhere else. The absence of stringent and enforceable environmental standards in NAFTA contributed to a rush to move the production of goods to Mexico. It also hurt our environment. As we consider the new NAFTA, Australia is being ravaged by wildfires that many scientists argue are exacerbated by climate change. Our trade policy should intentionally include efforts to recognize and combat climate change. The new NAFTA fails to tackle this challenge that today's and every succeeding generation for the foreseeable future will have to confront, and my colleague from Rhode Island has made this point in greater and granular detail. In l993, conditions in Mexico and the disposition of its government were not conductive to a free-trade agreement. Mexico's democratic institutions and law enforcement agencies were weak and susceptible to corruption. As is frequently reported in the news, this remains a challenge for Mexico. If Mexico cannot arrest certain of its citizens for fear of cartel violence, it seems unreasonable to believe that it will be able to effectively inspect factories for alleged labor violations in territory controlled by cartels or factories in which cartels have an interest. In order to revitalize manufacturing in America, we need a commitment to workers. We need to make national investments in infrastructure and innovation. But, instead, what President Trump is offering is a repackaging and rebranding of NAFTA. President Trump may not be an expert on a lot of things, but he knows the importance of branding. He thinks he can call NAFTA terrible, fiddle around the edges, re brand it as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, NAFTA 2.0, or whatever name he wants to come up with, and then call it great, big, and beautiful, when in reality, he hasn't solved a problem. Further, the new NAFTA fits neatly into President Trump's habit of creating a problem, sowing chaos, and then seeking credit when he provides a ``solution'' that is marginally better than where he began or worse. Many proponents of the new NAFTA explain that an important reason to vote in favor of this deal is that if ratified, it will remove ``uncertainty'' from the economy and our relationship with our NAFTA partners. However, the main cause of uncertainty from our relationship with Canada and Mexico was created by President Trump through his erratic threats to our neighbors and trading partners. The arsonist is not a hero for putting out the blaze he intentionally set. The President's pattern of behavior is prevalent throughout his trade policy. The President's tariffs and tweets are having a damaging effect. Indeed, while President Trump continues to assert that China is paying the cost, economists, including those from the Federal Reserve, have instead proven that these tariffs are being paid by American families, workers, farmers, small businesses, and manufacturers. These NAFTA amendments are just another example of an economic policy that provides crumbs to the middle-class. It goes hand in hand with the President and Republicans in Congress choosing to spend $1.9 trillion on tax cuts for the biggest companies and the wealthiest one percent of Americans who were recently estimated to already control more than a third of America's wealth. It is no wonder the President's tax law is unpopular. People can read the paper and see the list of those now paying little to nothing in taxes, while their taxes remain more or less the same and investment in roads and other infrastructure, education, or healthcare facilities goes unmet. We should be focusing our attention on lifting up working families and small businesses and ensuring that our Nation is on sound financial footing. While some of my Democratic colleagues had a hand in improving the initial agreement, it still fails to provide adequately for Rhode Island's workers and small businesses or the environment. Just like the old NAFTA, I cannot support this new one.