Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Richard Armitage, one of the finest statesmen of his, or any, generation of American national security leaders. Few American leaders have served their Nation more thoroughly--from combat overseas as a young officer, to the heights of diplomacy on the world stage. Richard Armitage will hold an important place in our country's history. Richard dedicated his life to service. He attended the Naval Academy and, following graduation, volunteered to serve three combat tours in Vietnam. He was known to his comrades to be fearless and unwavering, even risking his life embedding with Vietnamese riverine warfighters and, over the objections of others, personally led a flotilla of 30,000 Vietnamese refugees to safe harbor during the fall of Saigon. Richard would go on to serve in a number of critical roles in the Senate, Pentagon, and State Department across a number of administrations, including as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and as Deputy Secretary of State. He served as one of America's lead diplomats during the Gulf War, in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, and in the early years of the Global War on Terror. Throughout his distinguished career, Richard was an inspirational force to the men and women he commanded and the leaders he advised. Indeed, like his reputation as a linebacker at the Naval Academy, his tenacity was legendary among the national security and foreign policy leaders he worked with. I was privileged to work often with Richard, both in and out of his time in government. His leadership in so many demanding jobs leaves me with great admiration and gratitude. Richard's love for his country was surpassed only by his love of family--his wonderful wife Laura, their eight children, and their beautiful grandchildren. I offer the Armitage family my deepest condolences and thank them for sharing Richard with us for so many years. Richard Armitage was a powerful, inspiring person. He dedicated his life's work to serving others, and his was a life well-lived. He will be missed by all who had the privilege to know him and serve with him. I am proud to honor the legacy of Richard Armitage, and I know the Members of the Senate will join me in recognizing the incredible contributions he made for our Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Rhode Island's Senate President Dominick Ruggerio of North Providence, RI, who passed away on April 21, 2025, after a long and courageous battle with cancer. As the longest serving member of the Rhode Island State Senate, Donny was affectionately known as the ``Dean'' of the senate. I first met Donny as a young man when we both attended La Salle Academy in Providence, RI. We played high school football together, and indeed he was a remarkable gentleman then, both on and off the field. One of the things we discovered is that--Donny was about 6 feet 2 inches. He was a wide receiver. He would be running down the field, looking at the goal line with nothing in front of him, catch the ball, and then he would trip over me. I was a defensive halfback. So we got to know each other pretty well. He was one of the nicest gentlemen you could ever meet. He was especially kind and reached out to the younger players on the team, you know, encouraging us and also acting as sort of a custodian in making sure we got a chance and we weren't mistreated. Throughout his entire life, Donny carried that spirit to raise others up and provide opportunities for all. Then I later had the privilege of serving with him in the Rhode Island State Senate from 1985 to 1990. Once again, he paved the way for me with his advice and assistance. Indeed, his quiet commitment to the people of Rhode Island had always been an inspiration to me and, frankly, to anyone who ever met him. Donny was a strong advocate for organized labor and joined the Laborers' International Union of North America as a field representative and organizer, eventually becoming administrator of the New England Laborers' Labor-Management Cooperation Trust. Donny started his public service long before we linked up again in the State senate. He began working for the late Lieutenant Governor Thomas DiLuglio and then the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. His career continued in public service in the 1980s, when he was elected as representative of House District 5 in Providence, RI. Four years later, he succeeded his father-in-law, Majority Leader Rocco Quattrocchi, to Rhode Island Senate District No. 4, beginning his 40-year tenure in the Rhode Island State Senate. In that role in the senate, Donny served as vice chairman of the senate labor committee, senate majority whip, deputy majority leader, and majority leader. In 2017, he was honored by his colleagues with his election to the Office of Senate President. The hallmark of Donny's leadership style was to have an open-door policy which encouraged colleagues and constituents and elected officials to become engaged. He devoted his life to improving our community, to strengthening public health and public safety, and to creating new opportunities for all Rhode Islanders to thrive. He made significant strides toward improving the lives of working Rhode Islanders, and he is credited with spearheading efforts to preserve pensions and raise the minimum wage. In the face of recent, incredible, and ultimately insurmountable health challenges, Donny valiantly sought reelection last November in his beloved community and was returned by his senate colleagues to his post of senate president after he won reelection. He led the senate with tenacity and unwavering dedication. Throughout his decades of public service to his constituents in North Providence and Providence and to the entire State of Rhode Island, he was strongly committed to fulfilling his responsibilities, obligations, and tasks with a sense of accountability, decency, and honor. He led his life with purpose and served the people of Rhode Island extremely well. Donny leaves behind a devoted family, and I express my heartfelt condolences to the Ruggerio family: his children Charles Ruggerio and his wife Jillian and Amanda Fallon and her husband William; his grandchildren Ava Ruggerio, Mia Ruggerio, Natalie Fallon, and Jameson Fallon; his sister Lisa Aceto and brother-in-law James Aceto; and his nieces and nephews. I will miss Donny's friendship, his unwavering advocacy for our State and the people who make it a special place. Rhode Island is much better today because of senate President Ruggerio's leadership and dedication. He inspired us all and will continue to do so. I yield the floor to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on a different topic, I note that the Senate this week has started debate on the GENIUS Act. This bill establishes a regulatory framework for so-called stablecoins, which are representations of dollars recorded on a blockchain. The GENIUS Act could be the most significant banking bill that Congress has considered since the Wall Street reform legislation that passed after the 2008 financial crisis. There are a number of, I believe, fundamental problems with the GENIUS Act in terms of national security, consumer protection, and systemic risk. I am so pleased that the majority leader has said that we will have an open amendment process, and I look forward to filing a series of amendments to address the problems in the bill. I hope that, together, we can come up with a much better version. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Andrew Schiff, an extraordinary community leader, who after 17 years of service, will retire from his role as chief executive officer of the Rhode Island Community Food Bank. In helping meet the basic needs of Rhode Island's most vulnerable people, Andrew has led the Rhode Island Community Food bank through some challenging times. He took the helm at the food bank back in May 2007, mere months before the Great Recession began, and continued to lead the organization through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. During Andrew's tenure, demand for food assistance has increased--but so has the food bank's capacity to help. Indeed, Andrew helped double the amount of food distributed to those in need each month by the food bank and its 147 member agencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when hunger in Rhode Island jumped by 41 percent in a matter of months, Andrew and the food bank were there to help, serving over 70,000 Rhode Islanders each month by the end of 2020. More than that, Andrew helped keep Rhode Island's local growers and harvesters afloat buy developing new partnerships to deliver locally produced food to those in need. Demand for food assistance in Rhode Island and across the Nation remains high as pandemic-era assistance programs have ended. But under Andrew's leadership, the Food Bank has stepped up to the plate and now serves a record number of Rhode Islanders--over 84,000 people each month. That is a tremendous statistic but isn't the whole of Andrew's work. Recognizing that those in need also deserve the dignity of choice in their food, Andrew has also focused on expanding the food bank's offerings of healthy and culturally relevant foods to ensure that Rhode Islanders receiving food bank assistance have access to foods they are familiar with and that suit their tastes. Andrew has also advocated on the State and Federal levels to expand other food access programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, (WIC); and access to universal school meals, to ensure that no Rhode Islander goes hungry. Before joining the food bank, Andrew was assistant director at Project Bread--the Walk for Hunger, an anti-hunger organization in Boston, director of professional services at Jewish Family and Children's Service in Boston, and director of mental health at the Neponset Health Center in Massachusetts. He attended Haverford College as an undergraduate and received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Emory University. As a result of his years of effort to alleviate hunger, countless Rhode Islanders have ended the day with full stomachs, and the State as a whole is better off. I join many others in thanking Andrew for his work and distinguished service to our State. I wish him and his family all the best as he embarks on this next chapter.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to address President Trump's dangerous and inappropriate use of the U.S. military to carry out his immigration enforcement campaign. Before I discuss the Trump administration's spending nearly half a billion dollars and sending tens of thousands of troops, ships, combat vehicles, and aircraft away from their real missions, I want to make clear that border security is a priority. I do not support open borders, and I believe that those who enter the United States and break our laws should be subject to deportation in accordance with the law and due process. I voted time and time again for billions of dollars of increased support for border agents, detection technology, and physical barriers where it made sense. Mr. President, it is no secret that our borders have been under pressure for more than a decade because of a broken immigration system that congressional Republicans have consistently refused to help fix. We have considered bipartisan immigration reform bills in 2006, in 2007, in 2013, and in 2024, all of which were shut down by Republicans. The mess that we have today rests largely on their decision to put political advantage above real progress. Now President Trump is ignoring Congress, ignoring the law, ignoring the courts, and ignoring the Constitution in order to implement an immigration policy that fails to respect due process, adversely impacts our innovation economy, and, to the point of my remarks, degrades our military. In the name of his anti-immigrant efforts, President Trump is using the U.S. military to conduct operations on American soil that it has neither the training nor the authority to carry out. Our troops, who are already stretched thin for time and resources, are now burning time, assets, morale, and readiness for these overblown operations. The President has declared an emergency at the border to justify using the military for civilian law enforcement--this despite border encounters currently at the lowest level since August of 2020. Over the past 12 months since President Biden's Executive actions last June, there has been a continued, significant decrease in unlawful border crossings, including a more than 60-percent decrease in encounters from May 2024 to December 2024. In short, all along the southern border, we have seen a dramatic drop in illegal crossings and migrant encounters well before President Trump took office. A national emergency? It does not seem so. We already have an entire Federal Agency to protect our borders and address illegal immigration: the Department of Homeland Security. DHS includes Customs and Border Protection, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and other law enforcement groups. I have voted consistently to give these Agencies additional resources to carry out their missions. But immigration enforcement is not and must not become a function of the Department of Defense. Our military has long provided technical and logistical support to DHS at the border but always and exclusively in a supporting role, drawing a clear line between military law enforcement authorities. Indeed, since the Reconstruction era, U.S. Presidents have been prohibited from using the military in civilian law enforcement by a law known as the Posse Comitatus Act. This law has kept the Commander in Chief from wielding the military as a domestic political weapon, and it continues to provide an important check on the President's ability to use the military domestically against American citizens. I understand American citizens asking if it matters which Department enforces immigration as long as the job gets done. Well, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned by the President's current approach even if one agrees with him politically. Most alarmingly, President Trump is taking real steps to militarize immigration enforcement. Once he uses the military for this reason, it will be easier for him to use it for other purposes. And given the tenor of his public statements, it is a reasonable fear that he may someday order the use of the Armed Forces in American cities and against American citizens. Indeed, the Brennan Center--a law and public policy institution-- recently analyzed President Trump's military actions at the border and concluded: Using the military for border enforcement is a slippery slope. If soldiers are allowed to take on domestic policing roles at the border, it may become easier to justify uses of the military in the U.S. interior in the future. Our nation's founders warned against the dangers of an army turned inward, which can all too easily be turned into an instrument of tyranny. Beyond these concerns, there are real, immediate consequences for our troops, which we are seeing right now. One of the military's top priorities is readiness. America faces real, growing threats from China, Russia, Iran, and other adversaries, and the Department of Defense needs to be laser-focused on preparing troops to defend our interests abroad. It is difficult to explain the border missions as anything but a distraction from readiness. We should acknowledge the jobs that our troops are actually doing there. In the past, up to 2,000 National Guard and Reserve troops would rotate to the border each year to assist DHS and Customs and Border Patrol with basic monitoring, logistics, and warehousing activities-- non-law enforcement activities. These missions were designed to be ``behind the scenes'' to free up Border Patrol agents from administrative duties and return them back to the field to conduct their core mission of immigration enforcement. Today, however, President Trump has surged more than 12,000 Active- Duty troops to the border to carry out a variety of expanded missions that do not look anything like ``behind the scenes.'' For example, one Marine battalion has been stringing miles and miles of barbed wire across the California mountains. Multiple Army infantry companies are patrolling the Rio Grande riverbank on foot with loaded rifles. Navy aircrews are flying P-8 Poseidons--the most advanced submarine-hunting planes in the world, and they are flying them over the desert. Two Navy destroyers are loitering off our east and west coasts, looking for migrant boats in the water. At least one Army transportation unit is changing the oil and tires on Border Patrol trucks all day and every day. In addition, the administration has wasted massive amounts of defense dollars by flying migrants out of the country using military aircraft. Often, they have had to return them to the U.S. mainland just a few days later. According to U.S. Transportation Command, it costs at least $20,000 per flight hour to use a C-130 and $28,500 per hour to use a C- 17. In comparison, contracted ICE flights that regularly transport migrants inside of the United States cost only $8,500 per flight hour. President Trump's decision to use military aircraft instead of ICE aircraft to shuttle migrants across the globe to as far away as India is a gross misuse of taxpayers' dollars and servicemembers' time. Just yesterday, we learned that the White House wanted to fly migrants on military aircraft to Libya, which is one of the most dangerous, hostile locations on Earth. Human rights groups have called the conditions in Libya's network of migrant detention centers ``horrific'' and ``deplorable.'' The plan has been canceled for now, but it is unconscionable for the Trump administration to consider sending migrants to Libya and endangering our troops in the process. Further, the Department of Defense has informed Congress that the current surge in border missions, including troop deployment and military flights, could cost as much as $2 billion by the end of this fiscal year. Secretary Hegseth has claimed that the border mission is so overwhelming that we will have to withdraw massive numbers of troops from Europe in order to meet the demand. Incredibly, he has also claimed that the border mission will have ``no impact'' on our military readiness. However, we know that these border missions are harming military readiness. Last month, when the NORTHCOM commander testified before the Armed Services Committee, I asked how his forces on the border mission are maintaining their required military readiness and required training. He testified that his troops are spending 5 days a week supporting Customs and Border Patrol and other Agencies and only 1 day a week training. In other words, 20 percent--at most--of our servicemembers' time is being spent training on their critical military tasks. In my personal engagements with commanders at all levels, they have made clear that readying their formations requires extensive time and training as well as stability for families. Border missions will not build these warfighting requirements. Border missions will distract from training, drain resources, and undermine readiness. The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, has assessed previous support missions to DHS and found them to be detrimental to unit readiness. Specifically, in its 2021 report, GAO found that ``separating units in order to assign a portion of them to the southwest border mission was a consistent trend in degrading readiness ratings.'' In February, President Trump issued an unprecedented order to the Defense Department to begin transporting and detaining migrants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. For decades, the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay has housed a facility called the Migrant Operations Center that is used to temporarily house migrants who are saved at sea while traveling in unsafe vessels from Cuba, Haiti, or other nearby nations. The facility is typically unoccupied and is kept in a low-level operational readiness until needed--that is, until February. The intended use of the center was never to house migrants flown from the United States to Guantanamo Bay. Nevertheless, President Trump ordered the military to expand the Migrant Operations Center to accommodate up to 30,000 migrants who would be brought there from the United States. Within weeks, approximately 1,000 Active-Duty troops were sent to Guantanamo to build tents for this massive number of migrants. However, once built, the tents were found not to meet ICE standards, and to date, they have never been used and are now being dismantled. The hundreds of troops sent down for the mission have had very little to do in the meantime. Since February, around 500 individuals identified by the administration as illegal migrants have been flown to Guantanamo Bay, and most have been detained for no more than 2 weeks. Rather than being taken to the Migrant Operations Center, about half of these migrants have been held on the other side of the island at the detention facility that was built and used for law of war detainees, such as 9/11 terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. There are currently 15 law of war detainees remaining on Guantanamo Bay. The facilities housing these detainees have deteriorated significantly in the 20 years since they were built. The military personnel who guard these individuals also endure the same tough conditions in these dilapidated facilities. Needless to say, these servicemembers have been stretched thin. Last fall, it was a significant morale boost for them when the remaining law of war detainees were moved to a ``newer'' facility. Naturally, it was a blow, then, to their morale when, just 1 month later, they were ordered back to the older, more decrepit facility to make way for migrants at the newer facility. While it is crystal clear the military is in charge of the law of war detention center at Guantanamo Bay, it is not clear who is legally responsible for the migrants being held there. Longstanding law dictates that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintain ``custody and control'' of migrants, but in the detention center, the military maintains control. This leads to questions about who is in charge and who is accountable. When I have asked those questions, the answers have often been contradictory, and that is disturbing. To investigate these issues, I traveled to Guantanamo Bay in March with several colleagues, including Senators Shaheen, Peters, King, and Padilla. We conducted a firsthand examination of the missions underway there and met with military servicemembers, ICE officers, and DHS officials to fully understand the costs and military readiness impacts of these missions. The trip raised many new questions and concerns. I have grave doubts about the legality of removing migrants from the United States to Cuba, a foreign nation, and detaining them there. There are at least a dozen open cases and court orders impacting the Guantanamo mission. The detention center has only been used for law of war detainees, and it is reckless to equate migrants with international war criminals. I was also outraged by the scale of wastefulness we found there. It is obvious Guantanamo Bay is an illogical location to detain migrants. The staggering financial cost to fly these migrants out of the United States and detain them at Guantanamo Bay--a mission costing tens of millions of dollars a month--is an insult to American taxpayers. President Trump could implement his immigration policies for a fraction of the cost by using existing ICE facilities in the United States, but he is obsessed with the image of using Guantanamo no matter the cost. I am also frustrated that my Senate colleagues and I had to fly to Cuba to get answers to the questions that Secretary Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Noem have been ducking for months. By avoiding questions, they are putting servicemembers and officers on the ground in the position of trying to make sense of contradictory and political orders without any guidance or support from the Pentagon or DHS headquarters. Since coming into office, the Trump administration has expanded the role of the military in immigration enforcement in other troubling ways. The movement of migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay is unprecedented, and the buildup of 12,000 Active-Duty troops at the southern border, including the Army's 10th Mountain Division and 100 armored Stryker combat vehicles, has a huge impact on our military posture. This is a larger force than we deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003. This administration has purposely placed many of our military forces into the immigration debate in this country, and I fear it will also place them in legal and ethical risk. For example, on March 30--shown in the photograph here--a military flight traveled from Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador with foreign nationals on board, including seven Venezuelans. To my understanding, not a single DHS official or civilian was on the flight, meaning that military personnel maintained both custody and control of the migrants, contrary to longstanding DOD policy and practice. Here, as I said, is an image of that plane unloading in El Salvador. As you can see, the crew does not appear to include any DHS officials or civilian law enforcement personnel--only uniformed troops, who are physically handing migrants to the Salvadoran police. This flight would clearly have been in violation of various immigration laws and policies, recent judicial orders, and the Posse Comitatus Act, as the military carried out a core law enforcement function of deportation without any DHS official present. After the fact, the administration tried to explain itself by saying it used ``counterterrorism'' authorities rather than law enforcement authorities. I am not aware of any counterterrorism authorities that would authorize such a flight. Accordingly, last month, I sent a letter to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, asking that office to conduct an inquiry into the incident and any laws or Defense Department policies that may have been violated. I expect the IG to exercise his independence in carrying out this inquiry, and I am disturbed that the administration continues to put servicemembers in legal and physical jeopardy through these reckless orders. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. I am also concerned about the Trump administration's dubious creation of ``National Defense Areas'' along the southern border in the last several weeks. These National Defense Areas, first designated in New Mexico and later expanded into Texas, were created when the Department of the Interior transferred land, including the Roosevelt Reservation--a 60-foot-wide strip along the border--to the Department of Defense. So now, large swaths of the border are considered military installations. The administration has created these zones so that, when a migrant crosses the border in those areas, prosecutors can charge them with both entering the United States illegally and trespassing on a military installation. In effect, the National Defense Zones evade the longstanding protections of the Posse Comitatus Act by allowing military forces to act as de facto border police, detaining migrants until they can be transferred to Customs and Border Protection. In the administration's telling, this approach permits military involvement in immigration control without invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. This is both unprecedented and, indeed, a legal fiction. Again, as the Brennan Center report found: No matter how the Trump administration frames these activities . . . they are civilian law enforcement functions. He cannot turn them into military operations by misusing the language of war. These civilian law enforcement activities are not ``incidental''--they are the reason for creating the installation. The administration is also considering using military bases to detain thousands of migrants inside the United States. Unlike in past emergencies, when military bases near the border were used to hold migrants during large surges, this administration is seeking to use installations deep within the country, including in New Jersey, Indiana, Delaware, California, and Virginia. One could be forgiven for extrapolating that these bases are being selected to hold round-ups of migrants in major cities. The President is not taking these military actions out of necessity; he is testing the boundaries of our legal system and, in my view, violating them. If left unchecked and unchallenged, he will go much, much further in employing the Armed Forces in to enforce domestic immigration laws, traditionally a civilian law enforcement function. For years, Mr. Trump has publicly expressed his desire to use U.S. military personnel for domestic law enforcement. During the last campaign, he repeatedly claimed that, if elected, he would order the National Guard and Active-Duty military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented migrants. He even said that he would deploy the military to conduct local law enforcement in cities and that troops could shoot shoplifters leaving the scene of a crime. The President's defenders often say that he is joking or exaggerating when he makes such claims, but we know these are not idle threats. In his first 100 days in office, he has declared multiple national emergencies and has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport migrants without due process. Indeed, he has even unapologetically deported U.S. citizens in violation of the Constitution. We have all seen the chilling videos of masked and hooded ICE agents arresting civilians on the street--scenes we are accustomed to seeing on the nightly news, not here but in countries run by dictators. The administration is expanding its operation one step at a time, and President Trump's deployment of forces to the border, the military deportation flights, and the establishment of National Defense Areas can be interpreted as setting the stage to invoke the Insurrection Act and order the military to carry out domestic law enforcement inside the country. In fact, we have seen the situation before. In June of 2020, then- President Trump, infuriated by protesters in front of the White House and across the country, ordered his staff to prepare to invoke the Insurrection Act to allow him to deploy Active-Duty military forces to patrol the streets of DC and other cities. Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley talked him out of it, but the President clearly views this as a serious option. Beyond the immorality of Trump's desire to deploy military domestically, to do so would simply be illegal. As I mentioned, the doctrine of posse comitatus is sacred in our Nation to separate the military from direct law enforcement responsibilities. The use of National Guard or Active-Duty troops should be reserved only to those rare circumstances where civilian law enforcement has collapsed and State leaders have specifically asked for Presidential assistance. Their deployment should never be at the sole discretion of a President, as President Trump has demonstrated that such power begs abuse. Ultimately, U.S. military members are trained to engage the enemies of the United States abroad with deadly force, not to arrest migrants on the southern border or to deport them from U.S. cities. The military has a sacred role in our country, but the public's trust is easily lost, and a pillar of our society is cracked when the Commander in Chief uses the military recklessly. Our constitutional system is fundamentally designed to separate military and civilian roles, reserving police powers for law enforcement agencies and endowing the military with the superior weaponry and firepower necessary to fight and win the Nation's wars. When we allow the military to be used in the routine exercise of the police power, the Nation teeters on the brink of autocracy and military rule. One need not be a student of history to see how easily this backsliding can occur. It is all around us in the world today. Trump's clear intent to use the military in potentially illegal and certainly inappropriate ways for his own political benefit is antithetical to the spirit of our American democracy. Such power is the hallmark of authoritarians around the world. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth must use common sense, follow the law, and immediately cease the military border deployments and deportation flights. And, my colleagues, particularly my colleagues in the majority, should demand the same and hold the administration accountable for its actions. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my concern about the chaos that is roiling the Department of Defense. Sunday will mark the 100th day of Pete Hegseth serving as Secretary of Defense. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Hegseth said: President Trump wants a Pentagon laser focused on warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and readiness. That is it. That is my job. Well, Secretary Hegseth is failing the mission President Trump gave him. His actions over the past 100 days have done nothing but distract the Pentagon and undermine warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and readiness. In the first 100 days, Secretary Hegseth has terminated or weakened programs and processes that are the bedrock upon which our military recruits personnel and trains servicemembers to go into battle. For example, in February the Secretary announced his plan to slash the civilian workforce by 5 to 8 percent, terminate probationary workers, and institute a hiring freeze. These severe measures have only meant more work for the remaining employees and more costly work for military officers and contractors to cover the gaps, or simply not to carry out the missions. The Secretary has also launched a number of efforts to eliminate diversity and inclusion programs, which have led to more limited recruiting efforts, attempts to separate honorably serving transgender servicemembers, dissolving social clubs at the military academies, banning and removing books from the Naval Academy, and inspiring walkouts by students at DOD schools abroad over book bans and curriculum changes. Frankly, I joined the Army in 1967 and served on Active Duty for 12 years, and the idea that dependent children of military personnel in DOD schools would protest the Secretary of Defense to me was inconceivable, but it has happened, showing, I think, great anxiety in the ranks of our military personnel all across the globe. The Secretary is also failing his duty to lead the Department by example. That is one of the key touchstones of any military leader: ``Do what I do'' and ``Follow me.'' For example, on March 24, Mr. Hegseth demonstrated a severe lack of judgment when he texted classified military intelligence on the unclassified and unsecured Signal app to at least two group chats, including one with his wife, brother, and personal lawyer, which raises the question: Why would they have access to, or should have access to, highly classified information? That information, if intercepted by an adversary, would endanger the lives of our servicemembers deployed downrange. The Secretary also installed a ``dirty line,'' which is an unsecured internet connection into his Pentagon office so he could more easily send texts and personal emails. Such actions violate the laws and protocols that every other military servicemember is required to follow. When military leaders bring in enlisted personnel and junior officers and tell them about the boundaries of proper cyber use, they make it very clear: It is completely inappropriate--indeed, dangerous--to plug a dirty line into an official computer. The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General is conducting an investigation of these activities. This mishandling, in the view of most people I know, particularly professional officers, is classified information. And we all look forward to the Inspector General's independent and unbiased finding. And just hours ago, we learned of press reports that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will be fired this week because of his own actions around the Signal incident. If true, I welcome the message of accountability that it sends. Mr. Waltz made a significant mistake in adding a reporter to a sensitive Signal chat, and his failure could have had serious national security consequences. But I respect that he took responsibility for his mistake and paid the cost, apparently. In contrast, Secretary Hegseth has refused to take responsibility for his own misconduct, which, in my view, was far more egregious than that of Mr. Waltz. Indeed, the fallout from this incident has further eroded the already dismal credibility that the Secretary brought to the Pentagon. The Secretary's inner circle of handpicked advisers have nearly all resigned or been fired. His chief of staff was dismissed amid allegations of incompetence and unsettling personal behavior. Three of his senior policy advisers were fired for allegedly leaking sensitive information, which they all staunchly deny. And his top spokesman resigned after losing confidence in the Secretary and writing ``[T]he building is in disarray under Hegseth's leadership'' and, furthermore ``The last month has been a full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon--and it's becoming a real problem for the administration.'' And these were the words of Secretary Hegseth's self-selected top spokesperson. This chain of events is extraordinary and underscores the concerns I raised at Secretary Hegseth's nomination hearing. He does not possess the temperament and management skills needed to lead the Pentagon, and he is proving that over and over. There have been multiple news reports that Secretary Hegseth spends much of his day focusing on perceived leaks and that he has become paranoid, lashing out at aides and senior military leaders, convinced that they are undermining him. He has threatened his top military advisers, including then-acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Grady and Joint Chiefs Director General Sims with polygraph tests in order to prove that these distinguished military leaders are not liars. Knowing the quality and the dedication of these gentlemen to the military, and particularly to their obligation for honesty and fidelity, I find it unusual that they would be receiving the lie detector test. The Secretary's office should be leading the Pentagon, allowing the rest of the Department to be laser-focused on the missions, but, again, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made that very difficult due to the internal disarray they have created by firing key military leaders. These firings include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commander of Cyber Command, the U.S. Military Representative to NATO, the Vice Chair of the Air Force, the Secretary of Defense Senior Military Aide, and the top uniformed lawyers, or Judge Advocates General of each of the military services. You know, one of the thoughts I had is if you want to go ahead and do things that are beyond the law, the first thing you do is get rid of the lawyers, and that is the first thing he did. And these are not minor positions. They are vital to the Department's mission, and when left unfilled, the military loses focus and missions are compromised. These officers were fired without a plan to replace them, which is crippling our military's effectiveness during a perilous time. More importantly, these officers were fired without explanation, which leads to the worst possible outcome for a military force: fear throughout the ranks that one should not speak up, should not refuse an illegal order, and should not call out abuse or question decisions. General and flag officers are charged with providing their unbiased ``best military advice'' to the civilian leaders of the Department of Defense. Servicemembers, all the way down to young NCOs and enlisted personnel, are expected to give candid feedback to their leaders and peers, and commanders expect troops to give them the facts straight and true and their best advice because lives are on the line. In fact, any good officer understands that his success and the success and, indeed, the lives of his troops are based so much on the advice, the insights of noncommissioned officers in his command. And if that spirit, that aspect of military life in which people can talk the truth to each other is frustrated or essentially annulled, we are in a grave position. Now, similarly, Congress expects candor from senior officers to provide their best judgment without fear of retribution, for both the security of our country and that of the 2 million service men and women who put themselves in harm's way. But firing officers as a political litmus test poisons this military ethos. It sends an immediate signal to troops that providing their unbiased best military advice might have career-ending consequences. Now, I will take a brief moment to discuss the officers who have been dismissed. GEN CQ Brown served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was fired without explanation, not even halfway into his 4- year term--the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be dismissed during his term of office, and this stretches back many decades. The Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was designed by Congress to be such that it bridged elections, that it was not tied into elections, that it was far from elections. But one of the first steps that Trump and Hegseth set was to break this custom, this tradition, really, this value. When he was informed, he was visiting our troops on the southern border, and he was abruptly dismissed. General Brown served our Nation honorably for more than four decades. He was a fighter pilot with multiple combat missions, and he led the Joint Chiefs of Staff with dedication and skill. By the way, the Senate approved his nomination by a vote of 83-11, not exactly a vote for a controversial personality. To date, the Trump administration has given no justification for his dismissal. Seven full weeks passed without a confirmed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Gen. Dan Caine has now been confirmed and is working hard to get up to speed. Given what happened to his predecessor, General Caine must realize that in addition to his duties as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he must also deal with the political intrigue consuming the Pentagon. I hope that General Caine will always provide the best military advice to the President and the Secretary of Defense, even if that advice is not what they would want to hear. Secretary Hegseth also dismissed ADM Lisa Franchetti who served as the 33rd Chief of Naval Operations. She was the first woman to lead the Navy and the first to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Franchetti served in leadership roles at every level throughout the Navy, both on shore and at sea and with postings around the globe. She was a trailblazer, team builder, an inspiration to many. The Senate approved her nomination by a vote of 95-1, a strong endorsement from this body, based on her record of service. Again, the Trump administration has given no justification for her dismissal. To date, the administration has not nominated a new Chief of Naval Operations. It has been 2 months since Admiral Franchetti was dismissed, and the Navy remains without a Senate-confirmed Chief of Naval Operations at a time when the service is involved in the most intensive combat operation since World War II, taking place today in the Red Sea. I was able to greet a destroyer returning from the Red Sea and was informed that it had seen more action than any destroyer since World War II. Gen. Timothy Haugh served as the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command and the director of the National Security Agency. As the commander of Cyber Command, General Haugh led the most formidable cyber warfighting force in the world, responsible for detecting, deterring, and overseeing cyber operations against America's adversaries, particularly China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and various terrorist organizations. General Haugh had a distinguished 34-year career within Air Force cyber and intelligence organizations, including multiple command assignments. Indeed, I was impressed with not only his technical skill, but his professionalism, his commitment to serving the Nation, protecting the Constitution, and doing it with a skill which is remarkable. I am extremely concerned that press reports indicate that Laura Loomer, a fringe conspiracy theorist convinced President Trump to dismiss General Haugh and fire a slew of expert staff at the National Security Council for no discernible reason. Now, when a conspiracy theorist can get into the President's office and convince him to fire an officer of General Haugh's demonstrated capacity and others on the National Security Council, there is not only something wrong with that individual, there is something wrong with the President who is listening to them without consulting others. By the way, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Haugh to his post in December 2023, and once again, the Trump administration has given no explanation for his dismissal. The Trump administration has not selected a new CYBERCOM commander, and it is unclear if there is any sense of urgency to fill this position. Secretary Hegseth has given a priceless gift to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, by purging from our leadership one of our most vital national security commanders. VADM Shoshana Chatfield served as the U.S Military Representative to NATO, the first woman to hold this post. She held a vital leadership role within the alliance, particularly as it related to coordinating international support to Ukraine. Admiral Chatfield was among the finest military officers our Nation had to offer, with a 38-year career as a Navy helicopter pilot, foreign policy expert, and preeminent military educator, including as President of the Naval War College. The Senate unanimously confirmed Vice Admiral Chatfield to her post in December 2023. Again, the Trump administration has given no justification for her dismissal and has not nominated any replacement to this critical posting at NATO. Gen. James Slife was the U.S. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, the second highest ranking officer in the Air Force. He spent most of his 36-year career as a special operations helicopter pilot, a daunting and dangerous pursuit. He deployed many times around the world and flew countless combat missions in perilous conditions. General Slife risked his life repeatedly for our Nation and led his fellow special operators and airmen with distinction. Again, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Slife to his post in December of 2023. The Trump administration has given no explanation for his dismissal, nor have they nominated any officer to help lead the Air Force. Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short was the first female senior military assistant to the Secretary of Defense. She advised the Secretary and served as a representative for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, coordinating policy and operations across the Joint Staff, combatant commands, and with the U.S. interagency. A command pilot with more than 1,800 flight hours, including more than 430 combat hours in an A-10, she flew in Operations Southern Watch, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom and commanded airmen at the squadron, wing, major command, and combatant command levels. The Senate unanimously confirmed her to her post. The Trump administration has given no explanation for her dismissal. Finally, I am deeply concerned by Secretary Hegseth's dismissal of the Judge Advocates General of the military services. These officers, known as TJAGs, are the most senior uniformed officers in the military. These officers each served more than 30 years in uniform as military lawyers. They were strictly apolitical and held fundamental roles ensuring that balanced, legal counsel was part of every military policy discussion. These officers provided legal oversight that spanned military justice, operational law, administrative compliance, government ethics, and U.S. adherence to the law of armed conflict. These unprecedented firings, along with the firings of the inspectors general, should alarm everyone about the commitment of the President and the Secretary of Defense to follow the rule of law for the military and also within the United States and across the world. The Defense Department is one of the most complex institutions in the world, with a budget of nearly $900 billion and a workforce of nearly 3 million military and civilian personnel. It is an organization that requires strong leadership, stability, predictability, and trust. These qualities are critical because we ask the Department's men and women to risk their lives every day in the service of this country. Those men and women who gave their lives and all of those who are still serving at this moment deserve the best. They deserve a leader who is truly laser-focused on readiness, lethality, and the mission, not someone who treats his position as Secretary as a performative exercise complete with a Twitter feed dominated with workout videos. Our servicemembers deserve better. They deserve someone who is focused on them, not focused on himself. If Secretary Hegseth does not improve his job performance, the conditions at the Pentagon will continue to deteriorate, and something worse is bound to happen. I hope Secretary Hegseth takes note. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Warren, Van Hollen, and Sanders in introducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act. Our legislation would finally fully close a loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. At a time when the disparity in pay between CEOs and average workers is 290 to 1, there is no justification for forcing U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for lavish executive compensation packages. But that is what is happening. Under section 162(m) of the Tax Code, publicly traded corporations cannot deduct more than $1 million in compensation paid to their top executives. Section 162(m), however, does not apply to all employees, and corporations are exploiting this loophole to claim tax deductions for compensation packages for uncovered employees that far exceed $1 million. Indeed, publicly traded corporations are offering these lucrative compensation deals to ever increasing numbers of executives-- not just a few at the very top of the organization--even when revenue growth for these companies slows. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized the need to close loopholes in section 162(m). In fact, both President Trump and President Biden signed laws based on earlier versions of my legislation to curtail the abuse of this deduction. This includes ensuring that performance-based compensation is actually counted as compensation under section 162(m) and increasing the number of highly paid executives who are subject to section 162(m). Partially tightening the law in these ways has saved taxpayers billions of dollars. But until the loophole is fully closed, taxpayers will continue to be forced to subsidize extravagant compensation. The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act would address the remaining gaps by applying section 162(m) restrictions to all employees of publicly traded corporations, subjecting all compensation to a deductibility cap of $1 million per employee. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that closing this loophole would save taxpayers nearly $80 billion over 10 years. In other words, taxpayers are currently paying around $8 billion each year to subsidize exorbitant executive pay packages. To be clear, our bill does not prevent publicly traded corporations from being able to pay their executives as much as they want. These corporations simply won't be able to deduct the portion of the compensation package that exceeds $1 million. This is a matter of fairness. It ensures that corporations and shareholders--not taxpayers--are shouldering the cost of the multimillion dollar compensation packages. I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, MIT Professor and Nobel Prize Winner Simon Johnson, Take On Wall Street, Americans for Tax Fairness, and the Institute for Policy Studies, Global Economy Project for their support. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pressing for its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Warren, Van Hollen, and Sanders in introducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act. Our legislation would finally fully close a loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. At a time when the disparity in pay between CEOs and average workers is 290 to 1, there is no justification for forcing U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for lavish executive compensation packages. But that is what is happening. Under section 162(m) of the Tax Code, publicly traded corporations cannot deduct more than $1 million in compensation paid to their top executives. Section 162(m), however, does not apply to all employees, and corporations are exploiting this loophole to claim tax deductions for compensation packages for uncovered employees that far exceed $1 million. Indeed, publicly traded corporations are offering these lucrative compensation deals to ever increasing numbers of executives-- not just a few at the very top of the organization--even when revenue growth for these companies slows. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized the need to close loopholes in section 162(m). In fact, both President Trump and President Biden signed laws based on earlier versions of my legislation to curtail the abuse of this deduction. This includes ensuring that performance-based compensation is actually counted as compensation under section 162(m) and increasing the number of highly paid executives who are subject to section 162(m). Partially tightening the law in these ways has saved taxpayers billions of dollars. But until the loophole is fully closed, taxpayers will continue to be forced to subsidize extravagant compensation. The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act would address the remaining gaps by applying section 162(m) restrictions to all employees of publicly traded corporations, subjecting all compensation to a deductibility cap of $1 million per employee. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that closing this loophole would save taxpayers nearly $80 billion over 10 years. In other words, taxpayers are currently paying around $8 billion each year to subsidize exorbitant executive pay packages. To be clear, our bill does not prevent publicly traded corporations from being able to pay their executives as much as they want. These corporations simply won't be able to deduct the portion of the compensation package that exceeds $1 million. This is a matter of fairness. It ensures that corporations and shareholders--not taxpayers--are shouldering the cost of the multimillion dollar compensation packages. I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, MIT Professor and Nobel Prize Winner Simon Johnson, Take On Wall Street, Americans for Tax Fairness, and the Institute for Policy Studies, Global Economy Project for their support. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pressing for its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today alongside my colleagues to speak out against the attack on a fundamental right of every American citizen: the right to vote. I want to thank Senator Padilla for leading this important effort. The progress, the prosperity, and success of our Nation, both as an economic power and as an inspiration for freedom-loving people everywhere, has been aided by our efforts to tear down the obstacles that prevent citizens from voting. Today, the President and, seemingly, too many of my Republican colleagues want to throw that progress away. At the President's urgings, they appear to believe that it is OK to turn their backs on the work, the advocacy, and the sacrifice of women like Susan B. Anthony who worked so zealously for the right of women to vote, and men like Martin Luther King, Jr., and thousands of Americans who dedicated themselves to opening the voting booths to all Americans. Indeed, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are now advancing policies that could disqualify tens of millions of Americans from voting in elections. If adopted, these policies will make it harder for low-income individuals, the elderly, women, and even U.S. servicemembers deployed overseas to cast a ballot. Now, that is very ironic. These men and women in uniform are in dangerous locations to protect our fundamental rights, perhaps the most fundamental right is to vote, and yet this legislation would impair their ability to exercise that right. Election integrity is essential to our democracy. That is why Democrats vigorously support Federal funding and Federal anti-cyber interference in our elections. But what isn't essential is breaking a system that successfully prevents fraud and replacing it with one that makes it less likely that American citizens can exercise their constitutional right to vote. Yet that appears to be the Republican plan. Indeed, through a brazen, illegal, and unconstitutional Executive order, the Trump administration is attempting to mandate that every State change how it operates its elections. Its starkest proposal is to throw out State rules about voter identification requirements and require what is effectively a national ID--while ignoring current law that already makes it a serious crime for a noncitizen to vote. They have introduced the so-called SAVE Act, which recently passed the House of Representatives. It attempts to codify the President's dubious Executive order. Now, I can see people saying: Well, what is the big deal about making someone show ID? Well, like many catchy sales pitches, this policy is really a bunch of ``gotchas'' that will stand between millions of voters and the ballot box. According to the Brennan Center, more than 9 percent of voting-age American citizens, 21 million people, don't have proof of citizenship-- typically a birth certificate or a passport--readily available to show as they try to vote. And 4 million Americans don't have these documents available at all-- perhaps they were lost, destroyed, or stolen--and these Americans could be prevented from voting. Women who change their names after getting married, and that is 69 million Americans, will not be able to use a birth certificate alone to establish their citizenship, and they might not be able to vote. Americans could use a passport to satisfy the Trump policy, but according to the State Department, only half of Americans have a passport. And it will set you back $165 to get one just so you can exercise your constitutionally protected right to vote. By the way, I wonder if that could be considered a poll tax, which was outlawed through our Constitution, and we have to respect our Constitution. We all take an oath to do that. The Trump policy allows citizens to use a REAL ID ``that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States,'' but that is a false promise. As 15 secretaries of state recently wrote: REAL IDs do not indicate citizenship status. Even if the Federal laws for REAL ID were amended, the nearly 140 million REAL IDs that have been issued over the last decade could not be used as proof of citizenship. And these are the experts on elections, the secretaries of state of our 50 States. Now, some people may still think it is easy to get these documents or register to vote in person, but if you don't have the money to spare to get the proper documents, if you are elderly or disabled or can't easily get to your townhall, what are you to do? Faced with these barriers, they may just give up and not vote at all, which I believe is the ultimate objective of this legislation. Voter suppression is the way, I believe, that President Trump and others believe they can succeed at the polls. What the Constitution and the spirit of America suggests and what countless generations of American servicemen have fought for is access to the polls for all and enthusiastic voting by American citizens. And what about the servicemembers who are just deployed overseas and didn't have time to register? How does that young American report in person--because that is what this says, in person--to establish his or her citizenship? According to military and veterans service organizations, registration methods used for decades by millions of American civilians and uniformed servicemembers abroad ``would likely become impossible under the SAVE Act.'' We will send them to war, but we won't let them vote. Trump's policy would also impose unfunded mandates on States. According to the Rhode Island secretary of state who is one of the most, I think, effective secretaries of state in the country, the State government would need to change its voter registration systems and forms. It may need to purchase new voting machines and equipment, and it would need to pursue a significant public outreach campaign to educate voters about changes in the law. But the SAVE Act provides zero dollars to cover these costs. States and localities will need to cover this unfunded mandate. Well, why is the Trump administration imposing these costs and interfering with Americans' fundamental rights as citizens to vote? They claim it is to combat noncitizen voting, but this legislation isn't necessary to do that. The United States Constitution, the Rhode Island constitution, and Rhode Island State law explicitly state that only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote. Under Federal law, it is a felony for non-U.S. citizens to vote. These laws are enforced, and they are a significant deterrent. An exhaustive study by the Brennan Center found that at least 30 cases of noncitizen voting were referred for investigation or prosecution during the 2016 election. Trump's Department of Justice in his first term indicted 19 people. The law was enforced, but the objectives of this law are trivial compared to the millions of Americans who must have the right to vote. Now, those 19 should not have voted, but it is 19 votes out of 129 million cast. And as my colleague from Colorado pointed out, a better mathematician than I, that is a fractional portion of the American public. And make no mistake, they would suffer the consequences if they did vote illegally, these noncitizens. But we do not need a complete overhaul of our election systems and to strip millions of American citizens of voting rights in order to combat a problem that nonpartisan election experts tell us is already addressed by current law. The real reasons for this policy are to support Trump's Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen, even though he lost by roughly 7 million votes, to sow mistrust in our government, to deter people from voting. This is all in service of President Trump's insatiable desire for power and his insatiable ego. Efforts by his enablers to discourage absentee voting have already disenfranchised servicemembers. In North Carolina, Republicans have sought to cancel 65,000 votes in a judicial election--an estimated 2,000 to 8,000 of which were military and overseas voters. We are on the brink of exporting this injustice nationwide on a much greater scale. Senator Padilla is right to sound the alarm about this, and I am proud to join him. We want to help our fellow citizens participate in our elections because only their participation will ensure that the government is truly accountable to the people it represents. And as the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that handles election funding, I hope my colleagues will join me in restoring funding for election security grants to the States to the total of $75 million. If you are serious about election fraud, then give the secretaries of state the resources to ensure that ineligible voters do not cast their vote. Defunding them is an invitation for abuse. This isn't, nor should it be, a partisan endeavor. Democrats and Republicans shouldn't be afraid to face the voters, all voters, and compete on the basis of our ideas and aspirations. Trump's Executive order and the SAVE Act show that he has a different agenda, consolidating power for himself, not the people, through dissuading and deterring American citizens from casting their vote, one of the most fundamental values that generations of American service men and women have given their lives to protect, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will understand that. I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if you look clearly at the facts as they are today, by any measure, Donald Trump's first 100 days have been disastrous--not a success--for regular Americans and our Constitution. His administration has been marked by mismanagement, poor leadership, prickly egos, and policies that punch down rather than offer a hand up. In fact, that is reflected in the polls--not in January but today-- where his approval rating is the lowest of any President at the 100-day mark, I believe, in the history of this country. And as a result of these policies, America's economy and our standing in the eyes of our allies have fallen significantly. He has granted Elon Musk free reign to enter any Federal Agency and ferret through the data and files and personal information of every American citizen. And my impression of Mr. Musk: He doesn't do anything unless there is a profit connected to it. Musk and DOGE are rifling through our IRS and Social Security records. Meanwhile, Americans can't get their questions answered about their Social Security benefits because Mr. Musk and DOGE and President Trump have cut staff and administrative funding. They have even tried to cut the phone lines for basic services. And Trump officials just laugh it off. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, a billionaire--which is not unusual in the Trump circuit--said on a podcast: Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law, who's 94, she wouldn't call and complain. She just wouldn't. She'd think something got messed up, and she'll get it next month. A fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming, yelling and complaining. Well, that is very easy for a billionaire and his family to say: I don't think they would miss their Social Security check. But for working Americans who depend on Social Security, their retirement benefits, their disability benefits--just to make ends meet, to have food on the table--they would certainly miss the delay of a Social Security check. And it is not just the Social Security Administration. We also know President Trump has purged Federal employees by the thousands, without regard for their job performance or the importance of their work--every agency, from the office that runs the LIHEAP program to the National Weather Service, to the National Nuclear Security Administration. LIHEAP is essential to my constituents in the wintertime. That is how they stay warm. That is how they are able to live. The National Weather Service is renowned for its incredibly accurate and detailed and scientifically based forecasts. In fact, we all depend upon it and, I am told, particularly farmers in the Midwest, because if you are trying to figure out the day to plant your crops, you better know what the temperature is going to be in the morning and at noontime and in the evening. And the National Nuclear Security Administration is critical to protecting our nuclear weapons and developing them. I was in the airport in Providence, RI, and a young woman came up to me and said: Excuse me, Senator, but, 5 days ago, I was fired from the NNSA because I was a provisional worker. I got a call last night to get back as soon as possible--because the ability to protect and to develop our nuclear weapons could not be sustained without the presence of that lady and many others. And yet, given all of these issues, he has populated his administration with leadership that, at best, is uninterested in the challenges facing average Americans and, too often, unqualified to do the jobs they were hired to perform. He has withheld funding that was legally and constitutionally appropriated by Congress. He, in fact, has ignored the Constitution and Congress. One of his first acts was to fire the inspectors general throughout the government. Such a measure, by law, requires notice to Congress and 30 days' wait. He ignored that. And why? Well, if you are going to systematically break the law, you might as well get rid of those people who are checking on whether the law is properly enforced. He is defunding libraries and Head Start centers and halting critical medical research. He has closed the Agency for International Development and even withheld funding to feed starving children here in America and across the globe, and he has done incredible damage to our standing in the world. And as a result of his efforts to completely undermine the USAID, what is happening? Well, I will tell you what is happening: China is moving aggressively to take our place. And so, to people across the globe, when they look around and ask: Who is our friend? China? That is not good for us, and that is not what we, as Americans, have done for many, many years. He has also essentially extorted law firms to represent him and his causes for free. He has attempted to dictate how our colleges and universities are run, whom they hire and what they teach, essentially changing a prosperous knowledge-based economy--that is what we were talking about. That is how we would compete in the world. We are the knowledge-based economy. We are the innovators. We are changing everything. When you destroy our university systems and our health research systems, you turn a knowledge-based economy into a failing, ignorance-based economy. He has deported American citizens, threatened to annex Greenland, boosted Russia, and somehow found a way to alienate Canada, our neighbor and ally. Each of these items on its own would be a cause for outrage, but Trump hopes that he will overwhelm Americans by ``flooding the zone'' with one stunt after another. But the inescapable fact is, his policies are hurting the American people, and they see it--not last January at the inauguration but today when they are looking at prices that are still too high; when they are evaluating his promise of ending inflation on the first day and solving the Ukrainian crisis on the first day. They see it in the prices they pay at the grocery store, in the cost of a new car or a new home. Sadly, it looks like it is going to get worse for American families. Researchers at Yale University estimate that Donald Trump's current tariff regime--not including the tariffs he announced then backed away from--the current tariffs in place today will raise costs by $4,900 for families this year while increasing inflation as high as 5.5 percent and cutting economic growth. Other analysts project new car prices will rise by as much as $12,000 and new home prices by more than $9,000. I have spoken to multiple Rhode Island companies whose suppliers are already sending them higher quotes for their goods. Goldman Sachs estimates that the President's baseline 10-percent tariff on all imports would lead to fewer--not more--American jobs. Goldman estimates that this tariff will lead to roughly 400,000 fewer jobs nationwide. Markets continue to move wildly as he erratically threatens schemes like doing away with the independence of the Federal Reserve, firing the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and trying to seize the power to lower interest rates themselves, manipulating interest rates themselves and future tariffs. We are still in this uncertain period because he just suspended them for 90 days. If these future tariffs come back, it would rock the market again. And by the way, when the market was collapsing after his grand announcement, where was he? He was in Florida at his golf course where the Saudis and others have sent millions of dollars to him so they could host a tournament, and he could play golf with them. That is not the definition of Presidential leadership. Before Trump undertook his campaign of economic chaos, the economy was on a good trajectory. In fact, that chart illustrates the trajectory. These Trump tariffs have been a huge blunder. Instead of implementing a thoughtful policymaking process to boost key domestic manufacturing, the President has chosen a blunt, blanket-tariff approach. In doing so, he has treated allies like enemies and driven global partners into the arms of China. What we are seeing now and what we will experience in the coming months: higher prices for families, fewer jobs, smaller retirement accounts, and a weaker economy. And it is entirely on the shoulders of the President. It is a self-inflicted wound on the economy and the American people. But it appears that the President isn't done. He wants a ``big, beautiful bill.'' And what is in that ``big, beautiful bill?'' Big cuts for Medicaid and SNAP, which feeds children and disabled Americans, and big giveaways to the donors who financed his campaign and populate his administration. The American people see it, and survey after survey proves they do. The question is whether my colleagues, Senate Republicans, will go along with that. Will they listen to the people of America or will they still be under the thrall of Donald Trump? Americans deserve better than cuts to Medicaid. They deserve an economy headed upward, not backward. And they deserve a President who respects the Constitution and the rule of law that made our society and our economy the ``shining city on the hill,'' as President Reagan once said. The first 100 days of chaos and self-inflicted damage must end. It is time for America's business leaders and congressional Republicans to stand up and join us all in saying enough is enough. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Noel Simpson, senior director of the Rhode Island Student Loan Authority (RISLA), on his upcoming retirement and thank him for his more than three decades of service dedicated to Rhode Island students, families, and educators. Noel joined RISLA as a consultant in 1993. At the time, Noel was one of just the handful of employees managing the duties of the organization. Over the next several years, Noel led the rapid expansion of RISLA, developing a full team of professional staff and allowing the organization to become a leading voice on student loans and financial services in Rhode Island. As RISLA grew, Noel's career did as well, with Noel rising through the ranks and being named chief financial officer, deputy director, and eventually senior director. For the last 25 years, I have been proud to team up with Noel and RISLA to host our annual ``Financial Aid Nights.'' These workshops are dedicated to giving college-bound students and families a chance to learn firsthand from student aid experts about how to access financial aid opportunities for college. Students learn about financial aid eligibility criteria and the application process, such as completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The goal of this workshop is to educate students who need help paying for college, helping students navigate complicated and unfamiliar financial decisions. Noel has regularly served as moderator for these sessions, sharing his deep expertise and enthusiasm for student aid and financial literacy and making higher education more accessible. Indeed, Noel has been instrumental in bringing a variety of resources to college hopeful students throughout the Ocean State. For many years, Noel brought College Planning Sunday to Rhode Island, where high school seniors gathered to learn about how to apply for financial aid. Noel also spearheaded the creation of RISLA's College Planning Center, a free service that works directly with thousands of students to guide them through the college application process, including everything from writing a strong essay to selecting a college that best fits their goals. As the father of a high school senior, I can personally attest to the invaluable service the College Planning Center provides. Today, RISLA helps thousands of Rhode Islanders plan for and finance college, a number that has grown exponentially under Noel's leadership. His dedication has opened the door of higher education for a generation of Rhode Islanders. That is a legacy that has made a difference for our State and for students and families. I join so many of Noel's colleagues and peers in thanking him for his friendship and kindness and in wishing him a happy and healthy retirement, filled with new adventures, in the company of his wife Patti and their children. He has earned it.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Hagerty. This bipartisan legislation restricts the use of so-called mortgage ``trigger leads'' and gives prospective home buyers control over their personal credit information. Trigger leads are essentially tips based on information the major credit reporting bureaus sell to mortgage brokers and lenders when the bureaus learn that a consumer has applied for a mortgage with another lender. Each trigger lead they sell generates dozens of calls and solicitations to the consumer from lenders, ostensibly to provide the consumer with better offers. In fact, one home buyer reported to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that they received over 100 calls within 2 days of applying for a mortgage. Prospective home buyers who are bombarded by these kinds of solicitations typically have no idea their information was sold without their affirmative consent. Buying a home is often the most consequential financial decision a family will make. Getting spammed with additional offers after a family has already shopped for a mortgage and chosen a lender makes this already stressful process even more stressful. It can be very difficult, if not impossible, for a family to sift through dozens of offers over a few days and actually receive better credit. Consumers who are subjected to a deluge of solicitations as the result of a trigger lead are justified in feeling that their privacy has been invaded. Many reputable mortgage companies see it the same way. They support curtailing trigger leads since prospective home buyers often blame their lender for selling off their personal information even though it is the credit bureaus that are providing this information. Unrelenting, aggressive solicitations are more than just a nuisance. Indeed, some companies that buy trigger leads may not use them responsibly and may have poor track records of compliance. In 2018. the Washington Post reported that some mortgage lenders had used trigger leads to misrepresent themselves in calls by suggesting that they are underwriters for the consumer's current lender or by implying that they are calling from a government agency. According to reporting in the Chicago Tribune, unsuspecting home buyers are at risk of inadvertently handing over sensitive personal information, exposing themselves to identity theft. The current system leaves consumers without control of their personal information when they apply for a mortgage. Our bill will fix the current system by significantly restricting the circumstances in which the credit bureaus can sell home buyers' personal information to generate trigger leads. The credit bureaus would be permitted to sell this information only in the limited circumstances when the consumer already has a significant financial relationship with the lending institution seeking the information or when the prospective home buyer has provided affirmative consent to share this information broadly with other lenders. The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act will go a long way towards securing consumers' personal information and will provide much needed relief from the seemingly never-ending solicitations prospective home buyers receive during an already stressful time. Last Congress, the Senate acted unanimously to pass this legislation, and I would like to thank my colleagues for their support. However, this legislation was unfortunately not taken up in the House. I hope that this Congress, we can work together--on a bicameral, bipartisan basis--to address the abuse of trigger leads once and for all. I thank the broad coalition of consumer advocacy groups and trade associations for their support, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low- income clients, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the Community Home Lenders of America, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, the Broker Action Coalition, the American Bankers Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hagerty and me in supporting this commonsense, bipartisan bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Hagerty. This bipartisan legislation restricts the use of so-called mortgage ``trigger leads'' and gives prospective home buyers control over their personal credit information. Trigger leads are essentially tips based on information the major credit reporting bureaus sell to mortgage brokers and lenders when the bureaus learn that a consumer has applied for a mortgage with another lender. Each trigger lead they sell generates dozens of calls and solicitations to the consumer from lenders, ostensibly to provide the consumer with better offers. In fact, one home buyer reported to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that they received over 100 calls within 2 days of applying for a mortgage. Prospective home buyers who are bombarded by these kinds of solicitations typically have no idea their information was sold without their affirmative consent. Buying a home is often the most consequential financial decision a family will make. Getting spammed with additional offers after a family has already shopped for a mortgage and chosen a lender makes this already stressful process even more stressful. It can be very difficult, if not impossible, for a family to sift through dozens of offers over a few days and actually receive better credit. Consumers who are subjected to a deluge of solicitations as the result of a trigger lead are justified in feeling that their privacy has been invaded. Many reputable mortgage companies see it the same way. They support curtailing trigger leads since prospective home buyers often blame their lender for selling off their personal information even though it is the credit bureaus that are providing this information. Unrelenting, aggressive solicitations are more than just a nuisance. Indeed, some companies that buy trigger leads may not use them responsibly and may have poor track records of compliance. In 2018. the Washington Post reported that some mortgage lenders had used trigger leads to misrepresent themselves in calls by suggesting that they are underwriters for the consumer's current lender or by implying that they are calling from a government agency. According to reporting in the Chicago Tribune, unsuspecting home buyers are at risk of inadvertently handing over sensitive personal information, exposing themselves to identity theft. The current system leaves consumers without control of their personal information when they apply for a mortgage. Our bill will fix the current system by significantly restricting the circumstances in which the credit bureaus can sell home buyers' personal information to generate trigger leads. The credit bureaus would be permitted to sell this information only in the limited circumstances when the consumer already has a significant financial relationship with the lending institution seeking the information or when the prospective home buyer has provided affirmative consent to share this information broadly with other lenders. The Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act will go a long way towards securing consumers' personal information and will provide much needed relief from the seemingly never-ending solicitations prospective home buyers receive during an already stressful time. Last Congress, the Senate acted unanimously to pass this legislation, and I would like to thank my colleagues for their support. However, this legislation was unfortunately not taken up in the House. I hope that this Congress, we can work together--on a bicameral, bipartisan basis--to address the abuse of trigger leads once and for all. I thank the broad coalition of consumer advocacy groups and trade associations for their support, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low- income clients, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the Community Home Lenders of America, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, the Broker Action Coalition, the American Bankers Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hagerty and me in supporting this commonsense, bipartisan bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Lt. Gen. Dan Caine to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I am glad that we will soon be voting on this nominee. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is one of, if not the, most important positions in the U.S. military. The Chairman serves as the principal military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress. They are expected to be an unparalleled strategist, adviser, and manager, and their counsel is invaluable as we confront the multitude of national security issues before us. General Caine testified before the Armed Services Committee last week and represented himself well. He has had a distinguished career in the Air Force and the Air National Guard as an F-16 pilot with thousands of flight hours and multiple combat deployments. He has also served in senior leadership roles at the Pentagon, the White House, and overseas, including in the special operations and intelligence communities. If confirmed, General Caine would be the first career National Guard officer to serve as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I appreciate General Caine's record of service and thank him for stepping forward to lead once again. However, we must be clear about the unprecedented circumstances that led to General Caine's nomination. Two months ago, President Trump abruptly dismissed Gen. CQ Brown, who was not even halfway into his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary of Defense Hegseth also dismissed several other senior officers, including ADM Lisa Franchetti, the Chief of Naval Operations; Gen. James Slife, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff; Gen. Jennifer Short, the senior military adviser to the Secretary; and all three Judge Advocates General for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Last week, President Trump dismissed Gen. Timothy Haugh, the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, at the urging of Laura Loomer, a fringe conspiracy theorist. And on Monday, we learned that Secretary Hegseth had dismissed VADM Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. Military Representative to NATO. To this day, no credible explanation has been given for the dismissal of a single one of these officers. We cannot pretend that this is normal or acceptable behavior by the Commander in Chief and Defense Secretary. One by one, they are purging officers, threatening others, and undermining the fundamental principles of our military. I will speak more about this later, but I am deeply concerned that these officers were dismissed for political reasons. I have long warned about the dangers of firing military servicemembers as a political loyalty test, and I will continue to sound the alarm about this behavior. I must say that that the silence from my Republican friends on this issue is very troubling. Even as Republicans vote to confirm General Caine, I hope they recognize the dangerous message that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are sending throughout the ranks: Don't speak your mind or give your best military advice, or you may face consequences. I urge my Republican colleagues to join me in demanding an explanation from the President and Defense Secretary. I would take a moment to salute Gen. CQ Brown, who served this Nation honorably for more than four decades and led the Joint Chiefs with dedication and skill. He and each of the officers who were dismissed had outstanding careers in the military and represented our Nation with great courage, honor, and distinction. We owe all of them a debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice. We are fortunate that General Caine understands the fraught situation within which he has been nominated to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. During his hearing, General Caine repeatedly agreed that the military must remain apolitical. When he was asked how he would guard against politicization of the military, General Caine said, ``It starts with being a good example from the top and making sure that we are nonpartisan and apolitical and speaking the truth to power every day.'' I was also relieved by General Caine's response to my question about President Trump's claim that that he once said he ``loved'' President Trump and would ``kill'' for him while donning a ``Make America Great Again'' hat. During the hearing, General Caine categorically denied that this incident happened and stated, ``I've never worn any political merchandise or said anything to that effect.'' As the Nation's seniormost military officer, it will be his responsibility to understand the needs of America's servicemembers and to be their greatest advocate. If confirmed, he will be the most visible military officer in the Nation. It will be critical for him to represent the force with total professionalism and trustworthiness. In my conversations with General Caine and after speaking with those who know him best, I have found him to be an honest, smart, and principled military officer. He understands the momentous national security challenges we face and has pledged to represent our servicemembers with professionalism and discipline. Ultimately, I am optimistic that General Caine will provide his best military advice to the President and the Secretary of Defense, even if that advice not what they would want to hear. The Senate Armed Services Committee approved his nomination by a wide, bipartisan margin, and I intend to vote in favor of General Caine now.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we have a longstanding adult literacy crisis that affects the quality of life for individuals and families and holds our economy back, and the latest international assessments show that it is only getting worse. It is time for a major expansion of adult education. Today, I am proud to introduce bipartisan legislation--the Adult Education Workforce Opportunity and Reskilling for Knowledge and Success Act--or the Adult Education WORKS Act--with my colleague Senator Young. Adult education provides numeracy, literacy, digital literacy, English language skills, work readiness, soft skills, high school equivalency, and numerous wraparound services to millions of adult learners nationwide. These essential skills can make the difference between earning a family-sustaining wage and struggling to make ends meet. A study commissioned by the Barbara Bush Foundation estimated that getting all U.S. adults to the equivalent of a sixth grade reading level would generate an additional $2.2 trillion in annual income for the country. Without the opportunities provided through adult education programs, many adults will be left on the sidelines. The latest results for U.S. adults on the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, PIAAC, are sobering. Between 2017 and 2023, literacy and numeracy skills sank, with the percentage of adults at the lowest performance levels increasing from 19 to 28 percent in literacy and from 29 to 34 percent in numeracy. Building a sustainable economy that truly works for everyone is going to require helping these individuals acquire the basic skills they need to succeed. Unfortunately, we are reaching only a fraction of these individuals today. A recent study from the Adult Literacy and Learning Impact Network, found that over 80 percent of the adults surveyed indicated a strong or moderate interest in developing their skills, but only 20 percent reported knowing about existing programs in their communities. At current funding levels, the Department of Education reports that 1.1 million individuals were served, with over one-third of programs reporting waiting lists. In my home State of Rhode Island, there are over 61,000 adults who could benefit from English language instruction and nearly 64,000 working-age adults without a high school credential. Yet, under current funding levels, the adult education program serves just over 5,100 individuals. The Adult Education WORKS Act provides a roadmap for addressing this crisis. It calls for increased resources, nearly doubling funding for adult education by 2030. At the same time, it makes significant improvements to the adult education system. It calls for a new emphasis on digital and information literacy, which are essential for success in the workplace and in navigating everyday life. It enhances the role of adult education providers, with a special focus on public libraries and community-based organizations throughout the workforce development system, ensuring coordination and efficient use of resources. It invests in the professionalization of the adult education field, strengthening State certification policies, encouraging full-time staffing models, and expanding professional development opportunities and career pathways for adult educators. It provides support for college and career navigators in public libraries and community-based organizations to support adult learners where they live. Finally, it invests in innovation and accountability through pilot projects that test new approaches for measuring program performance and learner outcomes. In developing this legislation, Senator Young and I worked closely with key stakeholders, who are on the frontlines in the adult education community. I am pleased to count the American Library Association, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Coalition on Adult Basic Education, the National Coalition for Literacy, National Skills Coalition, ProLiteracy, the TESOL, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, International Association, and the Urban Libraries Council among the supporters of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with us to ensure it is passed on its own or as part of legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we have a longstanding adult literacy crisis that affects the quality of life for individuals and families and holds our economy back, and the latest international assessments show that it is only getting worse. It is time for a major expansion of adult education. Today, I am proud to introduce bipartisan legislation--the Adult Education Workforce Opportunity and Reskilling for Knowledge and Success Act--or the Adult Education WORKS Act--with my colleague Senator Young. Adult education provides numeracy, literacy, digital literacy, English language skills, work readiness, soft skills, high school equivalency, and numerous wraparound services to millions of adult learners nationwide. These essential skills can make the difference between earning a family-sustaining wage and struggling to make ends meet. A study commissioned by the Barbara Bush Foundation estimated that getting all U.S. adults to the equivalent of a sixth grade reading level would generate an additional $2.2 trillion in annual income for the country. Without the opportunities provided through adult education programs, many adults will be left on the sidelines. The latest results for U.S. adults on the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, PIAAC, are sobering. Between 2017 and 2023, literacy and numeracy skills sank, with the percentage of adults at the lowest performance levels increasing from 19 to 28 percent in literacy and from 29 to 34 percent in numeracy. Building a sustainable economy that truly works for everyone is going to require helping these individuals acquire the basic skills they need to succeed. Unfortunately, we are reaching only a fraction of these individuals today. A recent study from the Adult Literacy and Learning Impact Network, found that over 80 percent of the adults surveyed indicated a strong or moderate interest in developing their skills, but only 20 percent reported knowing about existing programs in their communities. At current funding levels, the Department of Education reports that 1.1 million individuals were served, with over one-third of programs reporting waiting lists. In my home State of Rhode Island, there are over 61,000 adults who could benefit from English language instruction and nearly 64,000 working-age adults without a high school credential. Yet, under current funding levels, the adult education program serves just over 5,100 individuals. The Adult Education WORKS Act provides a roadmap for addressing this crisis. It calls for increased resources, nearly doubling funding for adult education by 2030. At the same time, it makes significant improvements to the adult education system. It calls for a new emphasis on digital and information literacy, which are essential for success in the workplace and in navigating everyday life. It enhances the role of adult education providers, with a special focus on public libraries and community-based organizations throughout the workforce development system, ensuring coordination and efficient use of resources. It invests in the professionalization of the adult education field, strengthening State certification policies, encouraging full-time staffing models, and expanding professional development opportunities and career pathways for adult educators. It provides support for college and career navigators in public libraries and community-based organizations to support adult learners where they live. Finally, it invests in innovation and accountability through pilot projects that test new approaches for measuring program performance and learner outcomes. In developing this legislation, Senator Young and I worked closely with key stakeholders, who are on the frontlines in the adult education community. I am pleased to count the American Library Association, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Coalition on Adult Basic Education, the National Coalition for Literacy, National Skills Coalition, ProLiteracy, the TESOL, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, International Association, and the Urban Libraries Council among the supporters of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with us to ensure it is passed on its own or as part of legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Weatherization Assistance Program Improvements Act, along with Senators Collins, Coons, and Shaheen. Our bipartisan bill will make critical updates to ensure this important program can effectively serve even more households across the country. Since 1976, the Weatherization Assistance Program has helped more than 7 million low-income households reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. The Department of Energy estimates that these upgrades help each household save $372 or more in energy bills annually. Those energy savings free up limited financial resources for essentials, like groceries and medicine. In addition to traditional services like attic and wall insulation, the program also provides services that help with home health and safety measures, such as installing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Energy efficient homes also help cut down on our carbon footprint, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. An independent study of the Weatherization Assistance Program by Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that children in weatherized households miss less school, improving educational outcomes. Adults miss less work, increasing both their own incomes and their contributions to the economy. Families also reported experiencing fewer flu and cold symptoms and emergency room visits, decreasing costly medical expenses. The Weatherization Assistance Program also helps boost our economy. The Department of Energy has reported that the program supports over 8,500 jobs while increasing our national economic output by $1.2 billion per year. The program is a win-win for all involved. That is why, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have led my colleagues in supporting strong funding for it every year. And that is why I am introducing this bill--to ensure it continues to work for years to come. This bill will help expand the program to many more low-income households that are currently unable to receive weatherization services because their homes need minor structural repairs before they can be weatherized. The bill will authorize a weatherization readiness fund to repair structural issues and prepare homes for weatherization assistance, increasing the number of homes the program is able to serve. At the same time, it will raise the amount of funding allowed to be spent on each home to keep up with current labor and material costs, and it will raise the cap on the amount of funding allowed to be spent on renewable energy upgrades in each home. These provisions are essential updates to a program that has helped so many families over the past few decades. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Weatherization Assistance Program Improvements Act, along with Senators Collins, Coons, and Shaheen. Our bipartisan bill will make critical updates to ensure this important program can effectively serve even more households across the country. Since 1976, the Weatherization Assistance Program has helped more than 7 million low-income households reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. The Department of Energy estimates that these upgrades help each household save $372 or more in energy bills annually. Those energy savings free up limited financial resources for essentials, like groceries and medicine. In addition to traditional services like attic and wall insulation, the program also provides services that help with home health and safety measures, such as installing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Energy efficient homes also help cut down on our carbon footprint, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. An independent study of the Weatherization Assistance Program by Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that children in weatherized households miss less school, improving educational outcomes. Adults miss less work, increasing both their own incomes and their contributions to the economy. Families also reported experiencing fewer flu and cold symptoms and emergency room visits, decreasing costly medical expenses. The Weatherization Assistance Program also helps boost our economy. The Department of Energy has reported that the program supports over 8,500 jobs while increasing our national economic output by $1.2 billion per year. The program is a win-win for all involved. That is why, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have led my colleagues in supporting strong funding for it every year. And that is why I am introducing this bill--to ensure it continues to work for years to come. This bill will help expand the program to many more low-income households that are currently unable to receive weatherization services because their homes need minor structural repairs before they can be weatherized. The bill will authorize a weatherization readiness fund to repair structural issues and prepare homes for weatherization assistance, increasing the number of homes the program is able to serve. At the same time, it will raise the amount of funding allowed to be spent on each home to keep up with current labor and material costs, and it will raise the cap on the amount of funding allowed to be spent on renewable energy upgrades in each home. These provisions are essential updates to a program that has helped so many families over the past few decades. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1645 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator Kaine and 18 of my colleagues. Our amendment would simply prevent any cuts in healthcare coverage for a Medicaid beneficiary, something we should be able to agree on, I hope. We all have talked about the need to protect Medicaid. Now we have to stand up and do that. This vote is an opportunity to put our money and our votes where our words are. And the question is, Will you protect the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on Medicaid or do you vote for tax giveaways for the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else? I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, well, we are back here again with another variation of the Trump plan and the Republican plan to do further damage to our economy and to the working men and women of this country. It has been sliced and diced and repackaged and unpackaged, but it still boils down to a very simple equation: big tax cuts for the very, very wealthy and cuts to Medicaid and other key programs that are essential to Americans. This resolution is going to cost a lot of money--about $5.8 trillion with a ``t.'' Yesterday, President Trump unveiled his tariff policies and today, the markets reacted. They lost $2.5 trillion of value. He is just taking a sledgehammer to our economy and a sledgehammer to the working families who depend upon these programs like Medicaid and a sledgehammer to our universities and medical schools and research laboratories, which have made us the premier center for research innovation and healthcare in the world. And with these sledgehammer blows, I don't think we can maintain that status. These proposals by the President and my Republican colleagues are designed to take away the healthcare coverage from millions of Americans--seniors, kids, veterans, individuals with disabilities--and they particularly seem to focus on Medicaid. Medicaid provides essential healthcare services for the most vulnerable populations in the country. It covers nearly 80 million people, if you combine those covered by the Children's Health Insurance Plan, CHIP. In my home State of Rhode Island, over 300,000 people--and that is about one-third of my State--depend on Medicaid. And the Republicans are talking about cutting this program by at least $880 billion, which would be devastating. Looking at the Medicaid recipients in Rhode Island. It is interesting. One in five adults ages 19 to 64 are covered; one in three children are covered. And we all know how critical healthcare is for children because a childhood problem left untreated can lead, often, to much more serious health consequences as they grow older--much more dependency on social programs, which are paid for by us. Good healthcare as a child guarantees, in many, many, and most cases, success in school, success in life, and a healthy life--one in three children in Rhode Island need Medicaid. Five in eight people residing in nursing homes in my home state are also receiving Medicaid. Let me tell you what is going to happen when Medicaid is cut by this extraordinary amount of money, $880 billion. A lot of nursing homes will close because their margin, the difference between opening the doors and closing them, is the Medicaid money they receive. When that goes, where are you going to put your ailing mother or grandmother? I will tell you what you do. You are going to do it like they did it before Medicaid. When I was a young kid, it was not unusual to go visit someone, and in the front room there would be the hospital bed, the grandmother, and the mother was taking care of the person and that was healthcare back then. But after Medicaid, we were able to create a much more effective healthcare system. And this will touch not just the very poor; this touched working families. It is the only way they can keep, really, their mother or father or older relative or a child with a very serious illness in a safe, protected place where they can receive appropriate care. Three in seven Medicaid recipients in Rhode Island are working-age adults with disabilities. This is a situation where these people, because of their physical limitations, cannot work and need assistance. Some are severely disabled, others are significantly disabled, and they are going to be left, literally, out in the cold. I must say there is a corollary here because just a few days ago, the President announced that he was going to take the IDEA education program and move it into the Department of Health, which at the same time is trying to shed thousands and thousands of workers. So my fear, of course, is that--again, going back into my youth, the fifties and the sixties--that children with disabilities will be sitting in the back of the room by themselves trying to keep themselves occupied because what we have created through IDEA--a system of education tailored to the individual child's disability--will be unsupportable. And that is the kind of damage he is doing. It is the working people. It is the families. It is the kids. It is, I think, inexcusable. Throughout the country, 38 million children rely on Medicaid. And 2.3 million children with disabilities, as I said, throughout the country, rely on Medicaid. And also, as I have said, throughout the country, not just Rhode Island, 7 million seniors count on Medicaid to afford nursing home care or other health care services. So we are in a situation now where we are basically undercutting our healthcare system, and it is not just these people who feel it. Everyone will feel it. If these Medicaid cuts go through, it will create so much turmoil in my State that our healthcare delivery system will be under great pressure--but, I think, so much pressure that it will not work. Where do people go when they don't have healthcare? They go to the emergency room. So if you or I or somebody who might even have healthcare insurance and we have a serious problem, well, we can go to the emergency room and just get in the back of the line that is going all the way around the block and through the parking lot and everyplace else because these hundreds of thousands of people without healthcare, that is where they will have to go when it is so painful they can't go to work. This is a disaster in the making. And, again, we saw last week and weeks before, President Trump talking about, ``I am going to put tariffs in and we are going to fix the whole economy.'' Nonsense. It is a disaster. It is killing our markets. And, once again, ``Oh, I am going to go in there and take out Medicaid,'' et cetera, et cetera. It will be a disaster. I think we must avoid it. We are better off because of Medicaid--better healthcare outcomes in this country. It is a different country, literally, than it was prior to the introduction of Medicaid, and we are better for it. It provides healthcare coverage, for example, for 17 million women of reproductive age so they can have the healthcare they need. And it helps families grow and prosper. And by making seniors and people with disabilities get the care they need, we are, I think, living up to the aspirations of this country, which is to ensure that those who need care get care. You know, there have been a lot of men and women who served in the Armed Forces of the United States. I was proud to do it myself. And they weren't risking their lives so that a very wealthy individual could have five Mercedes rather than four. They were risking it so kids could have healthcare who needed it, so that their mother and father could have a place to be when they were sick and ill in their older years. And what we are doing? We are forgetting that sacrifice. We are saying: No, we are just here to pay off the rich people, the rich people who paid so much through the President's campaign to get him elected. The one thing I want to emphasize, which is very important and often overlooked--going back to Rhode Island--74 percent of adults on Medicaid are working in my state. There is this insidious notion that this is just a free giveaway to people who don't work, who don't deserve it, et cetera. That is why we can get rid of it. Seventy-four percent of the adults in Rhode Island on Medicaid are working, and they are working very hard. By the way, my guess is they are not getting a big benefit from these tax cuts because they are minimum wage or a little bit more. So we are really doing something that is so unjust and, I believe, un-American in rewarding the wealthy--some of whom have worked hard to get it, some of whom just were lucky enough to be born to the right parents. And we are giving them a fortune, and we are taking away basic healthcare from working men and women. We are in a very, very difficult situation. I don't think we can touch Medicaid, for the moral reasons I tried to suggest and for the economic reasons. If those 74 percent of Medicaid adults in Rhode Island who are working can't get to work because they are ill, how do we get the jobs done? We don't. The impact on the Nation in terms of these cuts is going to be horrendous, and this impact is going to be everyplace in the country. I have talked a lot about Rhode Island, but one of the ideas the Republicans are advancing to cut Medicaid is to eliminate the Medicaid expansion provided for under the Affordable Care Act. Now, according to the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, this cut would cost 41 States over $44 billion. States would have to increase their share of Medicaid spending by 25 percent. States like North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, and Nebraska would see their costs go up by more than 30 percent. So I hope my colleagues from these States are ready, willing, and able to go out and tell their constituents: Your healthcare costs are going up 30 percent. Now, obviously, I oppose this resolution that is being proposed. We have to do more, not less. And it is not just about the moral commitment I feel we have to people who need healthcare coverage; it is about the economics of caring for people early before it becomes more expensive, providing facilities for people who need those facilities rather than letting them languish at home. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REED. First, thank you for continuing to highlight the harm that is being done by the Trump administration and that it is inflicting on working Americans: flouting the law, withholding Federal funds, illegally shuttering Federal Agencies, ruining longstanding alliances, increasing prices and taxes on American consumers. It goes on and on and on. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it would fire 20,000 employees. Those cuts appear to be taking shape right now. Is the Senator aware that there are reports that thousands of HHS staff have been locked out of their offices this morning?