Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you very much. First, let me say that you are demonstrating incredible courage and conscience today and last evening as you stand here and point out the grave situation this country faces. You have clearly indicated--and I believe you are right--that the direction of this administration is toward authoritarian rule. Step by step, unfortunately, we seem to get closer. One of the great ironies of the administration is that President Trump loves to sort of fake people out, if you will, while he is doing something he doesn't like or we wouldn't like. For example, for 56 times, he has talked about the deep state, the deep state, while at the same time it appears he might be building such a deep state. For example, the Washington Post reported that the former chief data officer for the Social Security Administration has said that Elon Musk and his DOGE gang copied a mainframe database containing the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans, including names, birth dates, addresses, and more. In fact, if you step back, DOGE has pilfered information from every Federal Agency, and we are in a situation where I believe Trump is prepared to weaponize that information against the American people in so many different ways. So I would just ask: Did you hear my distress that Trump could use this information to attack his opponent? Could he use this information to disrupt the elections in '26 as a path to further authoritarian influence in the United States?

Mr. REED. If the Senator would yield?

Mr. REED. DOGE, it has been my observation, has pilfered information from every major Federal organization, and the Social Security Administration's former employees have indicated they have taken the most critical files that have detailed information on every American. I think you are right. There are only two things you can really do with this kind of data. You sell it or you weaponize it or you do both. The concern I think we both share is weaponization. In addition, I believe that the administration has sought from secretaries of state throughout the United States information about their voting rolls, which is specifically directed perhaps at electoral interference. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Well, I concur. If I may raise one additional question?

Mr. REED. You have seen firsthand what is happening in Portland. It is outrageous. The situation has been completely distorted by the President to suggest that there is major civil upheaval. That is not the case at all from the reports I have heard. His also suggesting that military personnel can enforce the laws of the United States violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which has been a barrier to police powers by the military since the 1870s. I assume, like myself, you are particularly disturbed that he is, again, not only weaponizing data, but he is weaponizing our military forces to go in and carry out civil wars. Your comments?

Mr. REED. Thank you very much, Senator.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, millions of Americans are starting to get notices that their monthly health insurance premiums will be going up by $100 or much more because President Trump and congressional Republicans are letting critical health insurance tax credits expire. Donald Trump likes to put his signature on things, and to be fair, he should be putting his name on each of these premium increases because-- there is no other way to describe it--this is a Trump health tax on working families. It is part of the Trump plan. Think about it. Trump demanded $4.5 trillion--and just to be clear, that is trillion with a ``t''--in tax giveaways in his deeply unpopular budget, but in all those tax cuts for billionaires, for gun manufacturers, for wealthy oil and gas companies, Trump and congressional Republicans couldn't find any room to extend the tax credits that help 22 million Americans keep their health insurance. In fact, to add insult to injury, they also cut $990 billion from Medicaid for the 70 million Americans who rely on it. Let's take a second to put Trump and Republican priorities in perspective. They passed a massive tax giveaway for approximately 902 billionaires. They slashed $990 billion from Medicaid, which covers 70 million Americans. And they decided to let health insurance help for 22 million working Americans just go away. Trump and GOP leaders are so committed to blocking anything good for Americans' healthcare that they are shutting down the government to prevent us from fixing the problem. That is where we are today. We all know that shutdowns are costly, wasteful, and needlessly disruptive. But not having health coverage because Republicans ended it, that is devastating. I want to be very clear: This is about the healthcare of 22 million Americans, not undocumented immigrants, as some Republicans have misleadingly claimed. Those in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for these tax credits or for Medicaid or Medicare, for that matter. This is about the healthcare of American families. There is a simple path forward: fund the government and help Americans keep their healthcare. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that we can wait to address this issue, the American people can't wait. Open enrollment for people who purchase health insurance for themselves or their families through the State marketplaces starts on November 1. That is less than a month away, and notices are already going out the door. In Rhode Island, these notices start to go out on October 17. If the Republicans keep us from acting now, premiums will more than double--a 114-percent increase. The new premiums will be so high that many people will forgo coverage. Indeed, it is likely that younger and healthier people will forgo coverage, leaving those under coverage with more complicated and more expensive healthcare needs, also driving up the costs of healthcare. In Rhode Island alone, roughly 13,000 people will likely lose their healthcare coverage for next year because of these price increases. We need to act. Last Friday, I met with small business owners in Warren, RI. They stressed the need for this tax credit. Even with this credit, it is difficult for them to afford health coverage and keep their businesses open. One of these businesspeople made a profound point. I call it the Uriah Principle after the first name of its proponent. What is the Uriah Principle? Simply, the most serious side effect or one of the most serious side effects of the lack of healthcare insurance is poverty. Yes. When you have no healthcare coverage and you get ill, you can't work. When you have no healthcare insurance you are in a very difficult position, and you are scrambling just to get by. That is not conducive to the initiative it takes for small businesses to thrive in this country. And my colleagues are always proclaiming their devotion and dedication to small businesses everywhere. This is a blow to small businesses everywhere. Now, it is unfortunate but Donald Trump and his handlers don't want to solve this problem, and congressional Republicans seem only to be interested in what Trump wants. Since August, right after congressional Republicans rammed through their $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare programs, the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have been asking to sit down and negotiate to resolve this problem. But at President Trump's direction, Republican leaders ignored the request. Trump said: Don't even bother dealing with [Democrats]. And Republican leaders have listened. At one point, the President agreed to meet but reversed course, apparently, at the direction of Speaker Johnson, who has kept the House in recess for the last month. Finally, the day before the shutdown--the day before the shutdown-- the President finally agreed to meet, not negotiate, just meet. Since then, nothing. Apparently, he has plenty of time to host the President of Argentina and has no problem sending him home with 20 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars, but he has no time to talk about helping the American people with their skyrocketing healthcare costs. While President Trump is ignoring this issue, he is demanding a blank check so he can run the government exactly how he wants to. Unfortunately, GOP leaders are willing to hand it to him and not for the first time. Late last year, shortly before President Trump took office, Democrats and Republicans reached a bipartisan agreement on a full-year funding bill for fiscal year 2025. It would have funded the government for the entire year, and it would have provided critical disaster relief, funding for national defense, childcare, the healthcare system, transportation infrastructure, and much more. But Donald Trump insisted that Republicans walk away from the agreement until he came into office so he could call all the shots. They delivered, and he took advantage. I didn't vote for the year-long CR that Trump eventually backed last March because even then, his excesses were already on full display. His wanton claims of Executive powers, his firing of thousands, cancellation of grants, misuse of law enforcement, politicalization of the military, and general lawlessness were apparent. And true to his nature, under the fiscal year 2025 continuing resolution he signed into law in March, Trump has illegally-- illegally--delayed or withheld Federal funds for medical research, including for childhood cancer; for Head Start; for Job Corps; for disaster recovery and mitigation; for foreign assistance, including lifesaving therapeutic nutrition for starving children in the world; for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which provides food and shelter throughout the country under the auspices of Catholic Charities, the Jewish Federation, and the United Way. He has used the so-called pocket rescission to illegally cancel $4.9 billion foreign aid, and he has even tried to close entire Departments and Agencies without congressional approval. To have the President sign a bill into law and simply flout its requirements like this is irksome, to say the least, particularly for members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, as a member of the committee, I know how hard we work to prepare bipartisan bills every year. Some of my Republican colleagues have been privately outraged by the President's actions. A few of them have had the courage to speak up publicly. But President Trump's campaign of petty vindictiveness and hard partisan ideology continues. Trump and his Budget Director Russ Vought say the shutdown will force them to fire Federal workers. That is nonsense. From day one, President Trump, Mr. Vought, along with Elon Musk and his minions, have tried to fire Federal workers by the thousands without cause and without thought. They have terminated experts in national security and intelligence, and in some cases, they have had to beg them to return to their jobs because they were, in fact, irreplaceable. Just this past Friday, the administration fired hundreds of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But before the weekend was over, they were scrambling to reinstate an estimated 700 employees who work on critical issues like measles response and containing the spread of Ebola. The administration has also fired many other Federal workers precisely because they have done their jobs with professionalism, honesty, and integrity, replacing them with loyalists with little background or expertise to do the jobs they have been appointed to do. Trump has allowed his political appointees to rifle through the personal data of nearly every American. I asked the FBI Director, after DOGE had gone through all this data, can he assure us that that data is not in the hands of anyone unauthorized to have it. He mumbled a response that was really nonresponsive. If you stop and step back, DOGE has pilfered the data in every major Federal Agency, and no one can tell you where it is; who has it. That could be the greatest crime committed against the American people in the history of this country. Trump's tariff taxes are driving up costs for food, electricity, clothing, and nearly every basic necessity for American families. Small businesses are facing these same cost increases too. As I said, when talking to small businesspeople in Warren, RI, they are looking at a very difficult challenge, and it is not being helped by Trump. This list goes on and on as does the list of lawsuits against the administration. And for 9 months, congressional Republicans have had the chance to show some true independence--to say no to Trump on his price-rising tariffs, to say no to Trump's misuse of Federal funds, to stand up to the administration's abuse of the personal data of Americans, to reject some of the least qualified and most dangerous Cabinet members in history, to conduct even the most basic taxpayer oversight of the numerous conflicts of interest and money-making ventures of the President, his family, and his allies. But when their votes have mattered, they have gone along with every bad decision this President has made. If this capitulation to the executive branch continues, the Senate will be rendered a hollow, powerless body, with Senators powerless to represent their constituents and States. And I would remind everyone that the iron law of the Senate is: What goes around, comes around. And my colleagues should ask themselves: Do they want their States and constituents treated this way, the way that Trump is treating his perceived political enemies, cutting off valuable public assistance to blue cities, putting U.S. forces into blue cities, the military, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act? I think the answer would be no. And what is good for one side has to be good for the other side. The President is not popular. What he is doing on every issue now is not popular. Costs matter to Americans in every State of this country, and this healthcare debate is all about costs. One of the ironies is that some of the biggest impacts of these healthcare changes will be on the red States. Everyone suffers across the country, but there is significant suffering in places that are prominently Republican. So why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying, ``Oh, we don't care''? They should think long and hard about that and remember why they wanted to be Senators in the first place: to improve the lives of their constituents, to help, to serve. And that requires compromise here. We saw that last week when we passed the National Defense Authorization bill with overwhelming bipartisan support in very efficient and rapid procedures. When you get compromise--bipartisan compromise--you get results. When you get a body that seeks only to carry out the will of one person, you get what we have now: stalemate, suffering by poor people who can't get healthcare, but great benefits to the wealthy. For the last several months, appropriators have been working on bills to protect and invest in the American people. Together, we passed eight appropriations bills out of the committee, most on overwhelmingly bipartisan votes. Three of those bills have been passed by the full Senate. Throughout this process, Democrats have shown our commitment to doing the hard work of government. We have been flexible and willing to compromise. And, frankly, if it was in the Senate's power, both Republicans and Democrats, we would have legislation--appropriations legislation--before the President today, but we have been unable to because of the roadblocks he has established using his leverage over my Republican colleagues. In fact, I think it is fair to say that President Trump and Speaker Johnson don't really want compromise and don't really want Congress to pass appropriations bills. They want Democrats to go away and give them another blank check, another CR. But forget whether it is a CR or an appropriations bill. If the President doesn't like the program, he just takes the money away, which is contrary to the Constitution, but that is just a detail. It takes 60 votes to pass a law here in the Senate. So Democrats are here, ready to reach a principled agreement on spending and protect the healthcare of 22 million Americans. We are ready. We just need the President and the Speaker and the majority leader to sit down and talk, not about their partisan interests but the welfare of their constituents. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to COL Johnny Brooks--a distinguished officer, a devoted servant of our Nation, and a remarkable friend and family man. Johnny served the Army and our country with great distinction. The son of an Army officer, Johnny grew up moving from post to post and decided early on to commit his life to service. He enlisted in the U.S. Army and soon earned an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a testament to his skill and determination. Commissioned as an infantry officer, Johnny advanced through the ranks with remarkable success. During his career, he commanded the 4th Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment and deployed to Panama as part of Operation Just Cause, served as an exchange officer with the British 1st Parachute Regiment, led the infantry training brigade at Fort Benning, and later became chief of staff of the 82nd Airborne Division. He was, through and through, a soldier and a leader. Throughout his distinguished service, Johnny inspired those around him with his professionalism, his courage, and his deep loyalty to his soldiers. His character, skill, and sense of duty made him a model officer and an example to all who served with him. I was privileged to know Johnny personally. As West Point classmates, we shared the formative lessons of ``Duty, Honor, and Country'' that shaped his life and career. Johnny's steady presence, humility, and good humor were constants to those of us who knew him well. After retiring from the Army, Johnny and his wife Christine made their home in Alabama, where they spent the past 25 years. His love for his country was surpassed only by his love for his family: his wife Christine; his children Heather and Matthew; his grandchildren; great- grandchildren; and sisters. To them, I offer my deepest condolences and my gratitude for sharing Johnny with our Nation for so many years. Johnny Brooks was a selfless and inspiring person. He dedicated his life to leading and serving others, and his was a life well-lived. He will be missed by all who had the privilege to know him and to serve alongside him. I am proud to honor the legacy of COL Johnny Brooks, and I know the Members of the Senate will join me in recognizing the remarkable contributions he made to our Army and our Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I oppose the Paul amendment. This amendment would remove one of the primary tools used by the Federal Reserve to implement monetary policy. The Fed used these tools that have been indicated on the floor with great effectiveness to contain the damage in financial crises in 2008 and 2020. In this uncertain economic moment, handcuffing the Fed would be a grave mistake. Unemployment is increasing, inflation is not contained, markets are highly volatile, tariffs are imposed and rescinded, and the Fed is under constant attack from the White House. The Fed needs all the tools in its box to prevent a crisis. We cannot wait in another crisis to have the Fed ask Congress to respond. That would be going in the wrong direction. If Congress does remove these tools, then the Fed could be forced to begin a fire sale on Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities worth trillions of dollars, and the Fed will no longer be able to control the monetary system. We have to do what we can to ensure that the Federal Reserve can prevent a crisis, and that it is not left waiting on the sidelines in the crisis unable to respond effectively. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would not change the current budget or program of the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force is already planning to keep the B-1 fleet longer than 2030, but this will signal a congressional intent to do so. I would also request a voice vote.

Mr. REED. Madam President, Senator Marshall's amendment would prohibit any flag other than the U.S. flag from being flown outside or in publicly accessible areas of military installations, public buildings in the United States, American Embassies and consulates, and public areas of congressional office buildings, including hallways. This amendment raises serious constitutional concerns about the right of free expression. But one example would be that a Member of Congress could not fly the flag of Israel, for example, unless he or she were being visited by an Israeli Ambassador. And that is a constraint, I think, on speech and the rights of Members of Congress, as well as others. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. With respect to specific military installations, in the fiscal year 2024 national defense bill, section 1052 gave the Secretary of Defense discretion to indicate what flag would be appropriate on a military installation. So we have dealt with this issue before in a bipartisan manner. I would urge a ``no'' vote on Senator Marshall's amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 3213

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I would like to commend Chairman Wicker whose leadership was absolutely essential to reaching this moment. He, too, is a veteran. He, too, understands the needs of our men and women in uniform, and he also recognizes and has contributed significantly with his floor staff, which has set a new standard for acquisitions. We have to get it through the conference, but I am sure we will. The hallmark of the Senate Armed Services Committee has long been bipartisanship, and I am glad we have continued this tradition for the 65th consecutive year. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. We were able to adopt, as the chairman indicated, hundreds of amendments during the committee markup, and I am glad that with bipartisan cooperation this evening, we adopted dozens more. This is strong, forward-looking legislation that we can all be very proud of. I am confident we will provide the Department of Defense and our military men and women with the resources they need to meet and overcome the national security threats that we face in a very, very challenging world. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to recognize the phenomenal staff that made this bill possible. I want to specifically recognize the director of the Democratic staff Elizabeth King and the director of the Republican staff John Keast. They have led their staffs, and they have worked together with the utmost professionalism. And I would also like to take the time to thank the staffers on the Democratic side, since the chairman has rightfully identified his staff members: Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jenny Davis, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Kevin Gates, Creighton Greene, Gary Leeling, Maggie McNamara Cooper, Mike Noblet, Chad Johnson, John Quirk, Andy Scott, Cole Stevens, Meredith Werner, Isabelle Picciotti, Brittany Amador, Sofia Kamali, and Noah Sisk. Also let me thank the floor staff and leadership staff. You have been a part of this process the last several weeks, and you have done a remarkable job. We thank you for that very, very much. Mr. President, this is a good moment. Now on to the next moment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to deliver two statements on the two resolutions that are before us. First let me comment upon the proposal S.J. Res. 71, led by my colleagues Senator Kaine and Heinrich, to overturn President Trump's sham energy emergency. You would think that, in an energy emergency, the President would be pursuing the all-of-the-above energy policy his administration has touted, but instead he is throwing up roadblocks at more than 90 percent of the power set to come online, as his Energy Secretary has acknowledged. Meanwhile, President Trump has invoked emergency powers to fast-track dirty fossil fuel projects, primarily to reward the Big Oil donors whom he reportedly asked to donate a billion dollars to his campaign. The fact is, energy prices are a real emergency for the American people, and we need more energy on the grid to keep up with the proliferation of AI and data centers. But the truth also is, President Trump and the harmful actions his administration is taking are actually restricting supply, killing good-paying jobs, and increasing energy prices, which have risen at more than twice the rate of inflation this year under President Trump. I will highlight two examples of President Trump's reckless actions in my home State of Rhode Island. Right now, the Rhode Island AFL-CIO is leading a critical lawsuit against President Trump's cancelation of the $7 billion Solar for All Program, which was designed to help low- and middle-income families install solar panels on their homes, saving those families about $400 each year on electricity costs. Rhode Island received nearly $50 million under this program to help thousands of Rhode Island households install and utilize solar energy while supporting hundreds of good-paying jobs in the State. President Trump claims to support workers, but he is actually killing good jobs that would bring affordable energy online for our constituents. And just weeks after canceling the Solar for All Program, the Trump administration paused work on Revolution Wind, a nearly complete offshore wind project off the coast of Rhode Island. This project is 80 percent constructed, with over $5 billion invested and 45 turbines already installed in the Atlantic Ocean. It supports more than 1,000 local union jobs and is poised to deliver enough low-cost energy to power 350,000 homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut. State officials estimate that losing this project could cost New England ratepayers up to $500 million a year. I am encouraged that a Federal court in Washington, DC, granted a motion allowing work on Revolution Wind to proceed and that work has restarted, but these cynical moves show that the President doesn't really care about energy prices or supply or jobs; he cares, really, about pleasing his Big Oil donors. He is also pleasing China, which is becoming the global leader in clean energy technology, building almost three-quarters of the world's solar and wind projects, according to the Global Energy Monitor. And despite President Trump's claims that China is simply exporting these technologies and not utilizing them, the New York Times reported that ``In China, more wind turbines and solar panels were installed last year than in the rest of the world combined.'' At the same time, President Trump is trying to keep the United States hooked on expensive oil and gas and dependent on OPEC and other foreign actors with interests opposed to our own; and while he is doing that, China is launching into a new age of relatively cheap energy that will power their data centers and their infrastructure. Rhode Islanders deserve infrastructure that creates good jobs; provides affordable, clean power; increases our energy independence; and reduces climate-destroying greenhouse gases in the process. And it is clear Trump's energy emergency is a sham, and I am proud to join my colleagues' efforts to overturn it. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to move to the topic before the Senate with respect to the War Powers resolution regarding Caribbean military operations. I rise to express my deep concern about the Trump administration's ongoing military operations in the Caribbean and to voice my strong support for the War Powers Resolution introduced by Senators Schiff, Kaine, Wyden, and Sanders. Over the past month, the United States has carried out four lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean, reportedly killing 21 individuals. These attacks have been retroactively explained by the President's unilateral declaration that the United States is in ``armed conflict'' with unnamed ``non-state armed groups'' throughout the Western Hemisphere. He has deployed thousands of U.S. forces, ships, and aircraft to conduct these operations--all without congressional authorization and without any credible explanation to the American people. Let me be clear. The drug cartels that traffic poison across our borders are violent and reprehensible. They have devastated families and communities across our country. We must do everything in our power through law enforcement, intelligence, and international cooperation to bring these organizations down. But that is not what this is all about. These are not police actions or defensive operations; these are targeted, lethal military strikes using weapons designed for warfare, not interdiction or law enforcement. The administration has offered no positive identification for those killed, nor any information linking the boat crews to cartels. In fact, they have not proven that these vessels were engaged in drug trafficking, nor even that they were destined for the United States. I would note that even if this evidence had been provided, that would only justify interdiction by law enforcement, not lethal military strikes. The justification thus far has relied entirely on the President's word, and that is not good enough. Our Constitution does not vest the power to wage war on one man's word. The White House has claimed that these strikes are allowable under the President's article II powers as Commander in Chief, but article II is not a blank check. The Framers of our Constitution deliberately separated the powers of war and peace between the branches. James Madison warned: The executive is the branch most prone to war; therefore the Constitution has, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature. The War Powers Resolution exists for moments like this. It ensures that before we send American forces into hostilities, the people's representatives have debated and voted on that decision. It ensures accountability. It ensures legitimacy. If we allow these unauthorized operations to continue unchecked, we will have surrendered Congress's most solemn constitutional duty. We will have set the precedent that the President--any President--may initiate military action at will, without oversight, without transparency, and without the consent of the governed. We have seen this pattern before. Over the past several years, this administration has repeatedly tested the limits of Executive power-- ordering strikes in Iran and Yemen and now the Caribbean, while refusing even a brief consultation with Congress. Each time, the lines blur a little further. Each time, the balance of power tilts a little more toward the Executive. This body, the U.S. Senate, cannot afford to shrug and move on. The slow erosion of congressional oversight is not an abstract debate about process; it is a real and present threat to our democracy. The War Powers Resolution before us does not tie the President's hands in responding to genuine threats; it simply requires him to do what every Commander in Chief should: come to Congress, present the facts, and seek authorization from the people's representatives before initiating hostilities. That is not weakness. That is constitutional strength. It is the principle that has guided our Republic for nearly 2\1/2\ centuries. Finally, I will say this: Even setting aside the constitutional questions, this campaign is deeply unwise. The notion that we can bomb our way out of a drug trafficking crisis is not strategy; it is wishful thinking. Using the U.S. military to conduct unchecked strikes in the Caribbean risks destabilizing the region, provoking confrontation with neighboring governments, and drawing our forces into yet another open- ended conflict without a clear mission or exit strategy. Conflict in the Caribbean or with Venezuela is entirely avoidable, but the risk that we stumble into war because of one man's impulsive decision making has never been higher. Our troops deserve better--much better. This War Powers Resolution would restore that balance. It reaffirms that the Constitution has always required that decisions of war and peace belong to the legislature, not the Executive. Mr. President, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to reassert the fundamental role of Congress in matters of war. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the New England Council, which was founded in September 1925 when the six Governors of New England gathered with business leaders in Poland Spring, ME, to better collaborate across our region's shared and intimately intertwined economic interests. Shortly after, the New England Council was founded as a nonpartisan and nonprofit entity to facilitate this work. For 100 years now, the council has been an indispensable partner advocating for the New England region. The New England States--our economies, culture, and interests--have been interconnected since before the founding of our Nation. While we may have much in common, our States are often considered the most ``independent-minded'' states. At one time, this tendency may have predisposed our States to chart our own paths forward and work fervently to protect our individual interests. Indeed, this history of self-governance and independence led directly to the events that founded the United States and laid the foundation for the principles of the Nation that we cherish. Now, and for the past 100 years, the New England Council has helped carry our region's independent spirit forward by bringing our States' interests together and helping ensure that New England is heard on the ever-changing national stage. To be sure, the New England Council's ability to be a convener of political leaders--on both sides of the aisle--business leaders, nonprofits, and academic and health institutions sets the council apart from many of its peers. Its ability to do so comes from the council's reputation as a nonpartisan, fact-driven organization that represents many diverse viewpoints embedded across our staunchly independent States. That is to say: when the Council speaks as one, we know the issue reflects consensus and is in service to its mission to promote New England's economic growth and safeguard a high quality of life for all New Englanders. The council's mission becomes even greater in times of turbulence. Whether during shared national struggles, like World War II or the COVID-19 pandemic, or in times of sharp political debate, our region's shared economic interests become more pronounced. In these times, the council does more than bring people together and advocate for solutions; it amplifies the voice of a region. This ability again relies on its ironclad nonpartisan reputation. Because it is so well regarded, the council can ensure that all New Englanders, even those who may not be politically well connected, can be heard by their representatives and the Federal Government. That means that when the national environment is loud, when there are many different stakeholders making their perspectives clear, the New England Council can definitively speak in one voice to ensure that our region's priorities break through the noise. On behalf of Rhode Island, I want to congratulate the New England Council, president and CEO Jim Brett, the entire board of directors, and all its members on a well-earned centennial. From working to address our region's housing shortage and infrastructure challenges to advocating for reliable and affordable energy, thank you for a century of working to advance Rhode Island's and New England's economic interests.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act, which I am reintroducing today with Senator Grassley, will bring needed transparency to the disciplinary proceedings the PCAOB has brought against auditors and audit firms. Over two decades ago, in response to a series of massive financial reporting frauds particularly the Enron and WorldCom scandals, the Senate Banking Committee held multiple hearings, which found various underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. Later, in a 99-to-0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses revealed by the hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of an independent Board, the PCAOB, to oversee auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies. Under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, the PCAOB oversees nearly 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin proceedings that can determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is a crucial component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, the Board's disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing, and these proceedings are typically kept hidden from the public. Furthermore, the Board cannot publicize the results of its disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been completely exhausted, which can often take several years. This lack of transparency invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, deter misconduct, and bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public. Our bill will restore transparency and reaffirm Congress's intent, by making hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters. Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings strengthens investor confidence in our financial markets and better protects companies from problematic auditors. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act along with Senator Grassley. Our bipartisan bill will help securities regulators better protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Despite the regulatory reforms made after the financial crisis, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street, and without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I worry this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist. The amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC can fine an institution or individual is restricted by statute. I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to execute its enforcement duties during my time as the chairman of the Banking Committee's Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee in 2011. Around then, a Federal judge criticized the SEC for not pursuing a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major actor in the financial crisis. The judge rightly noted that Citigroup had settled with the Agency for an amount that was far below the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC, however, indicated that a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty led to the low settlement amount. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, then-SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro explained that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many circumstances.'' Unfortunately, a decade later, the SEC's statutory authority remains unchanged, and the Agency's deterrent effect remains limited even though securities fraud is still as prevalent as ever. The bipartisan bill we are introducing will discourage misconduct by raising the maximum statutory civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of the penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially increasing the financial stakes for serial offenders of our Nation's securities laws. Specifically, our bill would broaden the SEC's options to tailor penalties to the circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``thirds tier,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the legislation would also give the SEC more options to collect greater penalties based on the ill-gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors. Our bill also has two provisions to deter repeat offenders on Wall Street. The first would authorize the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the previous 5 years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those who violate existing Federal court or SEC orders--an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These updates would reinforce the SEC's ability to levy tough penalties against repeat offenders. Our constituents deserve a strong regulator that has the necessary tools to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will enhance the SEC's ability to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency, deter bad actor, and maintain confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act along with Senator Grassley. Our bipartisan bill will help securities regulators better protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Despite the regulatory reforms made after the financial crisis, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street, and without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I worry this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist. The amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC can fine an institution or individual is restricted by statute. I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to execute its enforcement duties during my time as the chairman of the Banking Committee's Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee in 2011. Around then, a Federal judge criticized the SEC for not pursuing a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major actor in the financial crisis. The judge rightly noted that Citigroup had settled with the Agency for an amount that was far below the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC, however, indicated that a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty led to the low settlement amount. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, then-SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro explained that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many circumstances.'' Unfortunately, a decade later, the SEC's statutory authority remains unchanged, and the Agency's deterrent effect remains limited even though securities fraud is still as prevalent as ever. The bipartisan bill we are introducing will discourage misconduct by raising the maximum statutory civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of the penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially increasing the financial stakes for serial offenders of our Nation's securities laws. Specifically, our bill would broaden the SEC's options to tailor penalties to the circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``thirds tier,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the legislation would also give the SEC more options to collect greater penalties based on the ill-gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors. Our bill also has two provisions to deter repeat offenders on Wall Street. The first would authorize the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the previous 5 years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those who violate existing Federal court or SEC orders--an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These updates would reinforce the SEC's ability to levy tough penalties against repeat offenders. Our constituents deserve a strong regulator that has the necessary tools to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will enhance the SEC's ability to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency, deter bad actor, and maintain confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act, which I am reintroducing today with Senator Grassley, will bring needed transparency to the disciplinary proceedings the PCAOB has brought against auditors and audit firms. Over two decades ago, in response to a series of massive financial reporting frauds particularly the Enron and WorldCom scandals, the Senate Banking Committee held multiple hearings, which found various underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. Later, in a 99-to-0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses revealed by the hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of an independent Board, the PCAOB, to oversee auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies. Under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, the PCAOB oversees nearly 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin proceedings that can determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is a crucial component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, the Board's disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing, and these proceedings are typically kept hidden from the public. Furthermore, the Board cannot publicize the results of its disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been completely exhausted, which can often take several years. This lack of transparency invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, deter misconduct, and bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public. Our bill will restore transparency and reaffirm Congress's intent, by making hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters. Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings strengthens investor confidence in our financial markets and better protects companies from problematic auditors. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to President Trump's nomination of Stephen Miran to be a Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve is among the most important economic institutions in the world, let alone the United States. Simply put, it is authorized to create money and determine the cost of that money by setting interest rates, all with a goal of achieving maximum employment and stable prices. When its seven Board members have a degree of protection from political interference, then the Fed is better able to contribute to sound economic policy of the Nation. That is because they have freedom to make tough decisions that may not be favored by the White House but that are necessary to achieve the Fed's dual mandate. It is unfortunate that Dr. Miran demonstrated at his nomination hearing that he is a political partisan and that he will be President Trump's man at the Fed. As if to emphasize the point, Dr. Miran intends to perform this job while ``on leave'' from his current position as the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers at the White House. In other words, he will be keeping his job as the President's chief economic adviser while being able to vote on interest rates. An architect of President Trump's tariffs, which have stoked inflation and under which American families and businesses are suffering every single day, Dr. Miran will now have one foot in the Fed and the other foot in the White House. And someone with this record-- someone who has been a hardcore proponent of President Trump's policies that raise costs on everyday goods, that debase the value of the dollar, that are based on unconstitutional notions that Executive power has no limits--does not deserve a second job that comes with additional levers to damage the economy. So I will be voting no on Dr. Miran, based on his track record and qualifications. I will also be voting no because he will be making a mockery of the law by refusing to relinquish his White House job. The Federal Reserve Act says that ``the members of the Board shall devote their entire time to the business of the Board.'' This means, quite simply, that Dr. Miran should not and cannot have contact with the White House whatsoever while at the Fed. In other words, there must be very strong firewalls separating Dr. Miran's Fed duties from his White House duties. Those firewalls will not work for this President, who demands that his advisers serve his own personal interests, who demands total fealty, and who acts as if he is above the law. Those firewalls will not work for this Agency because President Trump is obsessed with browbeating the Fed into submission. He routinely demands that the Fed cut rates from 4.25 percent to 1 percent. He has tried to intimidate Chair Powell, a Republican whom Trump first appointed, calling him a loser, stupid, corrupt, and incompetent, simply because he won't do exactly what President Trump wants. And traditional firewalls will not work for this nominee. As the President's chief economist, Dr. Miran will almost certainly pick up the phone if Trump calls. He will be reading Trump's social media posts. He has every incentive to do Trump's bidding so he can return to his White House job. And even in the unlikely event that Dr. Miran acts independently, then Trump will simply fire him from the Council of Economic Advisers. Most troubling, Dr. Miran has testified that he has received advice from White House lawyers blessing this arrangement. This kind of self- certification is dubious at best, but Dr. Miran has failed to produce it. That is why I joined Ranking Member Warren and several of our Banking Committee colleagues in demanding that Dr. Miran share this analysis. And as is typical with this administration, he did not even respond to our request. Dr. Miran's stonewalling can only be read as a concession that this is a corrupt bargain. Critical questions remain unanswered because of Dr. Miran's contempt of the Banking Committee, his evasion of our questions, and his refusal to provide details about this fraught proposal to retain his White House job while at the Fed. He must be straightforward and honest about how he intends to do this job, and he must acknowledge the reality that the President will have enormous influence and leverage over him. We must have answers before the Senate votes on his nomination, which is minutes away, and we will not get those answers. I will also be voting no because Dr. Miran has shown exceptionally poor integrity in this confirmation process. He tweeted in 2023 that no person ``on the planet can go from highly political operative to politically neutral just because he or she gets a promotion. That's just not how human beings work.'' He said this during the Biden administration when a Fed Governor resigned to become an economic adviser to the President in the White House. Dr. Miran himself now wants to move between the Fed and the White House. Under Dr. Miran's own standard, he would need to violate the laws of physics to be capable of acting independently. Just last year, Dr. Miran wrote a 25-page paper proposing an overhaul of the structure and governance of the Fed. In that paper, he wrote that ``short-circuiting the revolving door between the Fed and the executive branch is critical to reducing the incentives for officials to act in the short-term political interests of the president.'' Yet, he is now racing through this revolving door. He called for specific reforms to shut this revolving door. Those reforms include prohibiting any Governor from returning to the executive branch for 4 years, removing the ``for cause'' removal protections for Governors, and the current President voluntarily refraining from removing any incumbent Board members or Reserve Bank leaders during his term. At his confirmation hearing, Dr. Miran didn't even try to stand by his proposal. He testified that this ``proposal was a package deal. It was a suite of checks and balances, and it's highly inappropriate to take one check or balance outside the context of the overall package.'' However, Dr. Miran badly mischaracterized his own work. In his paper, Dr. Miran never said that these proposals were a ``package deal'' or that they must be implemented in an all-or-nothing manner. To the contrary, he wrote that this ``proposal can be implemented in a piecemeal fashion, one policy at a time, if legislatively easier.'' Well, he has a chance to implement it one point at a time by simply resigning from the Council of Economic Advisers. This nominee is asking for the American people's trust to set the Nation's credit and monetary policy. By misleading the Banking Committee, which was deliberate, he has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with this responsibility. Like so many of this administration's nominees, Dr. Miran knew that standing by his previous views would take him out of the running, so he disavowed them to avoid getting crosswise with President Trump, who wants to get his man confirmed to the Fed today, which happens to be the day before the Fed's next meeting to vote on interest rates. Trump's former economic adviser Larry Kudlow said the quiet part out loud on a podcast last week. He said: The bottom line is: Trump is going to take over the Fed.'' Dr. Miran's appointment is a critical piece of Trump's hostile takeover, along with the attempted ouster of Governor Cook and the continued attacks on Chair Powell. When the Fed becomes controlled by Trump's yes-men, it won't speak with enough authority to achieve its mandate. Inflation will get out of control, higher prices will persist, and rates on credit cards, auto loans, and mortgages will go up. Americans will be asked to pay more to finance our Nation's enormous and growing public debt. This outcome is unacceptable while millions of Americans are struggling to cover increased costs on everyday expenses. I would like to close by quoting former Republican Senator Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, a native of Rhode Island who ably served as the ranking member of the Banking Committee. In 2021, he spoke against one of President Biden's nominees to the Federal Reserve and said: ``The American people deserve a serious nominee who . . . will serve without a political agenda. . . . It is exceptionally important to keep politics out of monetary policy.'' Applying Senator Toomey's principles, Dr. Miran has not demonstrated his ability to ``serve without a political agenda.'' He has not demonstrated that he is a ``serious nominee,'' and he has not demonstrated that he ``will serve without a political agenda.'' Instead, he has demonstrated his loyalty to President Trump and essentially thumbed his nose at the Senate. He has already compromised his independence through his plan to hold on to his White House position. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee not only for the benefit of the Federal Reserve but for the integrity of the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to welcome His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Washington, DC. Since 1991, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has served as the 270th spiritual leader of Orthodox Christianity, the world's second largest Christian denomination with 300 million Orthodox Christians living across the globe, including many in Rhode Island. He is an accomplished scholar, a devoted environmentalist, advocate for peace, and a leader who commands great respect around the world. Over the past three decades, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has used his position to establish himself as a leading voice on many important issues and is recognized as a powerful force for good within the Orthodox Christian faith and beyond. As part of his efforts to advance cooperation and understanding between Christians, Muslims, and Jews, he has cosponsored international peace conferences and advocated for peace-building efforts in order to promote mutual respect and religious tolerance on a global scale. Sometimes known as the ``Green Patriarch,'' he has also championed environmental protection efforts, including by organizing international, interfaith summits to address climate change and call attention to pressing environmental concerns. Once again, I join with Rhode Island's vibrant and important Greek community to welcome His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to our Nation's Capital. As the longest serving Ecumenical Patriarch he has cemented himself as an influential leader who is highly respected within Orthodox Christian communities and beyond.

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, last week, President Trump gave two orders to the U.S. military that were astonishing even by this administration's standards. First, he ordered the Department of Defense to be renamed the Department of War, a political theater exercise designed to sound tough while distracting from the real issues facing the Nation. Second, he ordered a military strike on a speedboat operating in the Caribbean, reportedly killing 11 people on board. In response to the attack, Venezuela has placed its military on high alert, and we are one miscalculation away from a shooting war no one in this Chamber has authorized. Rather than rebranding itself, the Pentagon should be providing to Congress and the public answers. For example, the intelligence that justified that strike on the vessel, the legal authority the President relied upon, and an assurance that we are not drifting toward another undeclared war. The Department of Defense was named as such after World War II for a reason. It was a deliberate statement from America's military that we are not a tool of conquest but a shield designed to deter aggression, defend the Constitution, and keep the peace. Reverting to the old name would not make us safer. It would send exactly the wrong message to the world at a time when tensions are already dangerously high. Changing the name of the Department of Defense will not improve military readiness, will not strengthen deterrence. It will not prevent a single conflict. What it will do is signal to the world that America is abandoning its role as a stabilizing force and embracing a posture of quasi--or real--permanent warfare. I am deeply concerned about the President's military actions in the Caribbean, which were taken without congressional authorization, without clear legal justification, and without any evidence presented that it was necessary to protect the United States or its forces from an immediate threat. Now, nearly a week out after the operation and amid threats of additional actions, the administration is just beginning to brief Congress on these issues. I want to be very clear. We all share a commitment to protecting the American people from transnational criminal organizations. Cartels are violent and dangerous, and they cannot be allowed to traffic across our borders. But we cannot allow that Homeland Security mission to become a blank check for war, for military action directed at civilians. We cannot let one man's impulsive decision making entangle this Nation in another conflict we neither need nor want nor care for. Last week's strike was no minor confrontation. This was a deliberate, lethal use of American military power. Press reports suggest that the operation was carried out by an attack helicopter or MQ-9 Reaper drone. Neither of those platforms are typically deployed to warn a vessel to stop. Those aircraft are designed for precision strikes. There is no evidence--none--that this strike was conducted in self-defense. That matters because under both domestic and international law, the U.S. military simply does not have the authority to use lethal force against a civilian vessel unless acting in self-defense. At most, and only in extraordinary circumstances, warning shots or disabling fire might be used to halt the vessel posing an imminent threat. That is the standard rule of engagement for U.S. forces worldwide. And there are no indications that U.S. forces attempted to stop, board, or even contact the vessel in question. Lethal force, particularly force that kills nearly a dozen people, is reserved for moments when there is no other option existing, when the safety of U.S. personnel or vital interests is immediately at stake. No such case has been made here. The Trump administration has offered no proof that this vessel was engaged in an attack or even that it was engaged in drug trafficking at the time. They offered no positive identification that the boat was Venezuelan nor that its crew members were members of Tren de Aragua or any other cartel. And even if we believe their unsupported assertions, that does not change the legal calculus. Our Armed Forces are not law enforcement Agencies. They are not empowered to hunt down suspected criminals and then kill them without trial. The Department of Defense's own senior leadership, including the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low- Intensity Conflict, have testified before the Armed Services Committee that the mere designation of a cartel as a foreign terrorist organization does not confer any new authority to use military force. And that is the administration speaking publicly. Let us be candid about what this means. Eleven people were killed without any apparent justification other than the word of President Trump. If there is evidence that these people were, indeed, cartel members trafficking drugs, it needs to be made public immediately. I would point out that the U.S. military monitors maritime drug movements in this region on a daily basis. For weeks--perhaps months-- surveillance aircraft and other sensors have been tracking cartel operations in the Caribbean. This strike, therefore, was not a snap decision made in the heat of the moment. It appears, frankly, quite premeditated, and it was carried out, in my view, without the legal authority to do so. Congress received a notification from the White House on September 3 citing a number of reasons for the attack and claiming that the President acted under his article II authority. But article II is not a blank check. The President is the Commander in Chief, but Congress retains the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution exists precisely to prevent unilateral military actions like this from dragging our country into undeclared war. The law is also clear that any change to the legal and policy frameworks governing the use of military force must be reported to Congress within 30 days. The administration submitted its annual review in February. If President Trump issued a new order on August 8 authorizing the use of force under these circumstances, as has been reported, then Congress should have received immediate notification. And we have not. Section 1067 of the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act further requires notification of any changes to an Execute Order, or ``exord.'' Lastly, section 130f of title 10 United States Code requires a detailed justification for and description of military operations involving lethal force. The Department submitted a 130f notification to Congress, but its contents were entirely insufficient and inconsistent with the level of detail that are normally compiled in such a report. This is a direct challenge to the separation of powers. If we allow this to stand, then Congress will have effectively ceded its war powers to the executive branch. We will have surrendered to the authorities the Framers to the Constitution invested in us, the representatives of the people, to decide when this Nation goes to war. And we also must reckon with the risk of escalation. Venezuela has already placed its military on high alert. President Maduro's regime has accused the United States of aggression. If they retaliate or answer by firing on our surveillance aircraft or other naval vessels in the region or responding in kind against U.S. civilians, the Trump administration has already stated that it will respond with more force. Then we are on a path for a shooting war with a foreign nation, a war that no one in this Chamber has authorized and that the American people have not been consulted about. We have seen this pattern before. Time and again, this President has tested the limits of Executive authority. He has unilaterally ordered major U.S. military operations in Iran and Yemen, and has refused to answer to Congress about these strikes. Right now, more than 2,000 National Guard troops are deployed on the streets of Washington. And earlier this summer, more than 4,000 National Guardsmen and marines were deployed in Los Angeles. Each time, we have seen the slow erosion of congressional oversight. Each time, we have seen the creeping normalization of unilateral military action. And each time, we have inched closer to a world in which the decision to wage war or to use the military to enforce the law is made by one person alone. That is not the system our Founders designed. James Madison wrote: The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. And we forget those words at our peril. This Chamber must act immediately. Members of Congress must receive a full briefing from the administration, including the intelligence that supposedly justified the strike, the legal analysis authorizing it, and a copy of any Presidential order that reportedly expanded the use-of-force authorities. If that order exists, it must be scrutinized publicly. If the President has exceeded his authority, this body must consider all remedies available, including legislative action to limit the use of funds for further unauthorized military operations. We cannot allow the United States to slide into another mindless conflict. We cannot risk the lives of American servicemembers based on secret orders and dubious legal theories. We owe it to the American people, to our Constitution, and the world to stand for the rule of law. We took an oath here--all of us--not to obey the President but to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which is being threatened right now. We also, as Senators, have responsibilities to protect the congressional powers inherent in the Constitution, not to simply surrender them to the President because of political expediency. Let us reassert Congress's role. Let us demand accountability. And let us ensure that this Nation does not stumble into war by the reckless acts of a single man. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. The Armed Services Committee approved this bill in July by a wide bipartisan vote of 26 to 1. I appreciated the opportunity to work with Senator Wicker and commend him for his leadership in this regard and also my colleagues on the committee who worked to produce this bill that we are now considering on the floor. But before I turn to the details of the bill, I must take a moment to address the ongoing deployment of National Guard troops here in the capital and across the country. Over the past several months, President Trump has drastically escalated his use of the military for political purposes, first in Los Angeles--in fact, a judge, today, found that it violated the Posse Comitatus Act with his actions--and now in Washington and very likely soon in other major cities. The President has abused his power as Commander in Chief to order thousands of military servicemembers to conduct law enforcement in American cities. This is antithetical to the core principles of our country. Our military is there to fight our wars. Police officers, under local jurisdiction, are there to enforce the laws. And then there are Federal laws that can be enforced by Federal authorities, not military personnel. I have always been a proponent of strong law enforcement and safety in our communities. That is why I supported the COPS and Byrne-JAG Programs, among others. But using military forces to police American citizens blurs the vital line between civilian law enforcement and the armed forces, and it damages public trust. Public trust in the military is hard-won and easily lost. And I fear the President is causing severe harm to that relationship. These deployments threaten the very freedoms our servicemembers swear to protect, and I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in calling for them to end immediately, this use of military personnel to enforce the civil laws of the United States. To that end, the fiscal year 2026 NDAA establishes important congressional oversight of Defense Support of Civil Authorities. The bill reinstates mandatory training for all servicemembers on the rules of engagement, domestic operations, ethics, and the code of conduct to prevent escalation during deployments on American soil--legal deployments--under both title 10 and title 32. It requires personnel deployed alongside law enforcement to wear clear service identification on their uniforms and ensures military lawyers remain fully qualified and in good standing. The bill also mandates reviews of military costs incurred supporting the Department of Homeland Security, reporting on the use of military facilities for migrant detention, and transparency when military aircraft and resources are diverted for immigration enforcement. We are accumulating a multi-multimillion-dollar bill in the Department of Defense for functions that are the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. That is not smart spending. That is not a wise investment in our military. Together, the provisions I described provide greater assurances that when our troops are deployed domestically and legally, their role is tightly defined, accountable, and consistent with American values. More broadly, this is a defense bill that is laser-focused on the threats we face. It addresses a broad range of pressing issues from strategic competition with China and Russia to countering defense from Iran, North Korea, and violent extremists. The bill authorizes important investments in key technology like artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, and hypersonics, and makes real progress toward modernizing our ships, aircraft, and combat vehicles. Most importantly, this NDAA delivers key wins for servicemembers and their families. It authorizes a 3.8-percent pay raise for our troops and provides important new resources, such as improved housing and barracks, additional childcare assistance benefits, and expanded programs to address traumatic brain injuries. It also strengthens education support for military children and requires more transparency in how pay and housing allowances are calculated. Our greatest asset in this country are the men and women of our Armed Forces. They deserve and they have earned these benefits. Bringing into the military qualified Americans from all ranks and all sections and all regions, both genders, is critical to the success of our military forces. Additionally, this bill reaffirms America's role on the world stage. It extends and expands the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and commits the Department of Defense to continue providing military and intelligence support to Ukraine. It also strengthens our alliances in Asia by fully funding the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and providing new authority for U.S. military cooperation with Taiwan. The bill would help modernize our partnership with Japan and the Philippines and ensure our defense industrial base works hand in hand with our allies to counter shared threats. Importantly, the bill will also prohibit any reckless reductions in our force posture in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Building upon progress directed by Congress the past several years, this year's bill further improves defense acquisition processes by enabling the Department to rapidly invest in and field cutting-edge commercial technologies. By improving defense small business programs and partnerships with high-tech companies, this legislation will help meet the defense, industrial, and civilian needs of the United States. Similarly, to compete successfully abroad, our military services and combat commanders must have the resources they need. This legislation broadly supports the procurement of naval vessels, combat aircraft, armored vehicles, weapon systems, and munitions requested in the President's defense budget for fiscal year 2026. The bill provides additional funding for the procurement of Virginia- and Columbia-class submarines, which are critical to power projection and deterrence around the world. Importantly, this NDAA also provides greater predictability and stability in our naval acquisition programs and improves the U.S. shipbuilding infrastructure through modernization efforts. And as we navigate the threats of nuclear escalation from Russia and increasing capabilities from China, this Defense bill strengthens our deterrence strategy by helping to modernize the U.S. nuclear triad. It makes progress in ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, our delivery systems, and our infrastructure, increasing capacity in theater and homeland missile defense and strengthening nonproliferation programs. There are many more provisions in this bill that will help equip the Department and our warfighters with the tools they need to succeed. I look forward to discussing them throughout this process on the floor. Let me conclude by, once again, thanking Senator Wicker and my colleagues for working, thoughtfully, on a bipartisan basis to develop this important piece of legislation. I look forward to a very thoughtful debate on the issues that face our national defense and our Department of Defense. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Whitehouse to pay tribute to a legendary Rhode Islander, Judge Frank T. Caprio, whose limitless compassion while serving as the chief judge of the Municipal Court of Providence made him a beloved figure not only in Rhode Island but around the world. Judge Caprio's illustrious career was marked by a special dedication to serving others, and it spanned nearly 40 years with the Providence Municipal Court, where he established a reputation for his empathy in the application of justice. Judge Caprio passed away on August 20, 2025, at the age of 88 after a long and courageous battle with pancreatic cancer. In his signature optimistic and heartwarming way, Judge Caprio did not let his diagnosis dampen his good spirits, and he continued to spread his warmth to the many fans he earned through the Emmy-nominated television show ``Caught in Providence.'' This show, ``Caught in Providence,'' was a worldwide phenomenon. It was picked up virtually all across the globe, which made him an international celebrity, not just a local Rhode Island personality. Through national syndication and social media, the ``Nicest Judge in the World'' scored legions of admirers. Following his example, we want to take a moment to honor his legacy, which will undoubtedly continue to live on through the many lives he touched in the courtroom and throughout the world. Let me be very, very clear. Frank Caprio was a great man. His greatness came from two fundamental principles: He never forgot where he came from and who he came from. As a son of an immigrant father and a Providence native mother, Judge Caprio grew up in the Italian neighborhood of Federal Hill in Providence, just down the street from the courthouse where he presided. He learned from his father to work hard and to help others wherever possible. He spoke often of shining shoes to make a little extra cash as well as his father's apt advice to always put himself in the other person's shoes, to understand who people are and what brought them to where they are today. His message as a judge was never about punishment. He saw people first and sought fairness in justice. He was committed not just to enforcing the law but to doing justice. In word and deed, Judge Caprio exemplified his father's advice. Speaking with CBS News after his diagnosis--again demonstrating his unyielding humility--Judge Caprio said: I'm just a small-town municipal court judge, just trying to do good. That's how I am. . . . [I try] to take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the people before me. And remember what my dad told me . . . when someone appears before you, put yourself in their shoes . . . imagine it's you before them. How do you want to be treated? As much as he tried to play down his contributions, Judge Caprio was much more than ``a small-town municipal court judge''; he was the premier example of noble public service and the embodiment of the ideal form of justice, one that focuses less on punishment and judgment and more on overcoming our mistakes, seeking forgiveness, and forging a stronger community. Before his time on the court, his dedication to service was apparent. He was a teacher, a member of the Rhode Island Army National Guard, and a local elected official. Judge Caprio was also a dedicated lawyer, an accomplished restauranteur, and a business owner. He also treasured the wisdom his parents shared and valued the opportunities that education brought him. He wanted to see others share in that success, so he worked to create scholarships and served for a decade as chairman of the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education. Judge Caprio's compassion and generosity inspired the best in others. After seeing his kindness online and on TV, viewers from around the world sent in unsolicited donations to support Judge Caprio's mission-- so many donations, in fact, they inspired the establishment of a fund known as the Filomena Fund, which was named after Judge Caprio's beloved mother. The fund celebrates the generosity of his mother--a trait so clearly inherited by Judge Caprio. Even after Judge Caprio's retirement, the Filomena Fund continues to support charitable work in and around his beloved neighborhood of Federal Hill. His support for philanthropic causes, and the scholarships he established to support those seeking to make a difference in their community, further exemplified Judge Caprio's work to lift up those around him. A true believer in the power of empathy, Judge Caprio used his wit, wisdom, and grace to make the world a better place. He often said: Kindness is the one gift that costs nothing but means everything. A humble and benevolent man of integrity, Judge Caprio was bestowed with the Mother Teresa Award for Social Justice in 2023. Judge Caprio was a mentor to generations of Rhode Island leaders. I always enjoyed catching up with him over a cup of coffee. We spoke of current events, the state of our Nation, and about our families. I valued his wisdom, optimism, and sensibility, and I will remember him fondly for his generous spirit, his personal example of leadership and, indeed, his many, many kindnesses to me. Along with Senator Whitehouse, I want to express our deepest condolences to Judge Caprio's beloved wife of more than 60 years, Joyce. I also want to extend my condolences to Judge Caprio's entire family--Frank, David, Marissa, John, and Paul, his children, along with his seven grandchildren and two great-grandchildren, who filled him with enormous joy. Know that your husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather is a shining example of a great man and a cherished public servant. Through you, his love and empathy will live on. And now I yield to my colleague Senator Whitehouse to continue this tribute to this truly good and decent man whose life has brought honor to every Rhode Islander. I yield the floor.