Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. If the Senator would yield for another question.

Mr. REED. President Trump and the Secretary of HHS, Secretary Kennedy, are, as I indicated and made you aware, firing a host of people today, but the critical staff functions will be undercut--for example, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which focuses on worker safety. LIHEAP, as you know, provides essential support to literally keep people warm in the winter and cool in the summer in our Southern States. With LIHEAP undercut like that, there will be effects. People will become unhealthy. In fact, they probably could even pass away. NIOSH, on the other hand, is an Agency that looks after 164 million people in this country so they are safe. We all know--we all remember back--all of those stories about the Gilded Age, which sometimes, I think, the administration wants to bring back, where children labored in shops, where garment workers were killed in fires because there was no way to get out, as all the exits were sealed. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health prevents that. Work-related injuries and illnesses cost our economy $250 billion annually. So that will double, triple, quadruple. We are seeing all sorts of reports about the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC. They do critical work, and they are under the gun. We are seeing reports that the Director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products has been fired. We can see that President Trump and Secretary Kennedy would rather stand up for Big Tobacco than for young kids who get hooked on it, and it ruins their health. These are just a few of the cuts, and I know you are aware of them. I know you are focused on these. They are going to destroy years of progress, and, basically, it is being shouldered by working Americans. Nobody who lives in Mar-a-Lago needs LIHEAP heating. Nobody who dines at Mar-a-Lago needs Occupational Safety and Health deployed, but the waiters do, and the grounds people do. So, Senator, what are your thoughts about it?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Whitehouse, the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the foremost voice for sensible climate policies, someone who for years has warned us of the approaching dangers of climate change and today once again has demonstrated his great insights-- particularly with respect to the cost to homeowners--of climate change. He is raising the alarm about President Trump's environmental policy and the effect it will have on the health and well-being of Americans. I want to thank him for his leadership on this important issue. Earlier this month, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that his Agency would move to repeal 31 environmental and health protections. This Trump environmental plan will undo restrictions on air pollution from powerplants, cars, and trucks. It would allow harmful discharges into our water systems, relax restrictions on emissions of mercury and other known neurotoxins, ease limits on soot and haze pollution, and the list goes on and on and on. These rollbacks appear to be a quid pro quo for President Trump's fossil fuel donors, whom he reportedly asked to donate a billion dollars to his campaign last year. One of Trump's most concerning proposals is the repeal of the EPA's longstanding scientific finding that greenhouse gases are pollutants. After losing in the Supreme Court in 2006, the fossil fuel industry has been out to overturn this so-called endangerment finding for nearly two decades. Repealing it would degrade the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, meaning it could no longer act to curb emissions from vehicle exhaust, factories, powerplants, and many, many more locations. Relaxing these standards will result in more pollutants in our air and in our water. The fact is, these pollutants are not just numbers on a chart; they are the reason millions of Americans are suffering from asthma, heart disease, and other respiratory conditions. Several studies have shown that air pollution can negatively impact maternal health and lead to miscarriages and low birth weights. These health impacts will particularly harm low-income communities, where the effects are disproportionately severe. Mr. Zeldin claims these actions will ``unleash American energy,'' but really they will just unleash more pollution on the American people. Mr. Zeldin claims that these actions will drive down costs for American families, but the evidence shows otherwise. Indeed, EPA previously found that for every $1 the country spends to reduce air pollution, it is estimated to yield $30 in economic benefits in return. These actions will worsen climate change and contribute to more flooding and coastal erosion, which have cost homes and businesses in my home State of Rhode Island millions of dollars in just the past few years. Mr. Zeldin claims that by rolling back these protections, he is simply giving power back to the States, but we know that pollution does not respect State lines. We are all in this together to protect our air, water, and human health. The Trump administration is taking us backwards and hurting hard-working families in the process. I firmly oppose the Trump EPA's misguided plan and will continue to join Senator Whitehouse and my other colleagues in pushing back against this administration's harmful agenda. Once again, let me salute Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this critical--indeed, this existential--issue. I yield the floor to Senator Welch.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse. I am also pleased that my colleagues Representative Magaziner and Representative Amo will be introducing a companion measure in the House of Representatives. Our legislation will give Rhode Island a voice and voting representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC, which manages some of the most important fish stocks for our State's commercial fishing industry--chief among them squid. The National Marine Fisheries Service reported that Rhode Island led Atlantic States in the harvest of squid in 2023--the most recent year for which data is available. Fishermen landed more than 30.7 million pounds of squid in Rhode Island, helping make Point Judith one of the most productive and valuable commercial fishing ports in the United States. For years now, Rhode Island's landings of stocks managed by the MAFMC have outpaced the landings of those managed by the New England Fishery Management Council, where Rhode Island is represented. Moreover, Rhode Island has a larger stake in the mid-Atlantic fishery than many of the States that currently hold seats on the MAFMC. Because so much is at stake for our State in every decision the MAFMC makes, our bill would expand the MAFMC by two seats in order to ensure that Rhode Island will have the minimum number of seats guaranteed to other States on the council. It will allow Rhode Island to continue to have representation on the New England Fishery Management Council, where it still has significant interests. This proposal is not unprecedented. In fact, it is modeled on a provision of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act that added North Carolina to the MAFMC in 1996 while allowing it to retain its membership on the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Moreover, it will join States like Florida and Washington which all have representation on more than one fisheries management council. Mr. President, this is a commonsense proposal and one that my colleagues and I will be working to advance either on its own or as part of the reauthorization the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse. I am also pleased that my colleagues Representative Magaziner and Representative Amo will be introducing a companion measure in the House of Representatives. Our legislation will give Rhode Island a voice and voting representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC, which manages some of the most important fish stocks for our State's commercial fishing industry--chief among them squid. The National Marine Fisheries Service reported that Rhode Island led Atlantic States in the harvest of squid in 2023--the most recent year for which data is available. Fishermen landed more than 30.7 million pounds of squid in Rhode Island, helping make Point Judith one of the most productive and valuable commercial fishing ports in the United States. For years now, Rhode Island's landings of stocks managed by the MAFMC have outpaced the landings of those managed by the New England Fishery Management Council, where Rhode Island is represented. Moreover, Rhode Island has a larger stake in the mid-Atlantic fishery than many of the States that currently hold seats on the MAFMC. Because so much is at stake for our State in every decision the MAFMC makes, our bill would expand the MAFMC by two seats in order to ensure that Rhode Island will have the minimum number of seats guaranteed to other States on the council. It will allow Rhode Island to continue to have representation on the New England Fishery Management Council, where it still has significant interests. This proposal is not unprecedented. In fact, it is modeled on a provision of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act that added North Carolina to the MAFMC in 1996 while allowing it to retain its membership on the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Moreover, it will join States like Florida and Washington which all have representation on more than one fisheries management council. Mr. President, this is a commonsense proposal and one that my colleagues and I will be working to advance either on its own or as part of the reauthorization the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe that Americans are ready and willing to answer the call to serve and come together to meet the challenges that we face at the local, national, and international level. We just need to create the conditions to mobilize them. That is why I am proud to join Senators Young and Coons and Representatives Houlahan, Panetta, Bacon. and Bergman in introducing the Unity through Service Act. Our bipartisan legislation is based on the recommendations of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. The Commission was established in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Back then, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain and I were trying look at how we could encourage the most qualified individuals of all backgrounds to volunteer for military service. We quickly understood that the question was also about something bigger. What does it mean for the Nation when so many people do not have the common experience of service, whether in the military or in their communities? And what happens when those who want to serve do not have the opportunity to do so? With those thoughts in mind, we established the Commission to look at the issue of service comprehensively. One of the statutory mandates of the Commission was to explore the ``means by which to foster a greater attitude and ethos of service among United States youth.'' We as a government must be prepared to invest in what is truly one of our Nation's greatest assets--our public servants. This has been an urgent matter for decades, but it is ever more urgent today. The Commission published its final report and recommendations just as the COVID-19 pandemic began to grip the Nation. It set a 10-year goal for 5 million Americans to begin participating in military, national, or public service each year. Additionally, the Commission set targets for ensuring there are more than enough qualified individuals seeking to serve in the Armed Forces, and it called for modernizing government personnel systems to attract and enable Americans with critical skills to enter public service. The Unity through Service Act would help to implement those recommendations, providing the architecture and focus to mobilize a whole-of-government approach. Specifically, the Unity through Service Act would establish an Interagency Council on Service to coordinate and lead initiatives that extend across military, national, and public service. The Council would be tasked with preparing and submitting to the President a national strategy on service, including a review of current programs, initiatives, and online content. The legislation would promote cross- service marketing, recruitment, and retention through joint advertising campaigns and shared market research. It would also ensure that transitioning military members and AmeriCorps members are informed about other service opportunities open to them. The Unity through Service Act would elevate all forms of service, leveraging the strengths of existing programs and would provide a roadmap for bringing a new generation of Americans together in service to our Nation. Americans want to serve. We just need to provide the opportunities and the connections for them to do so. I urge my colleagues to join us in reaffirming our national culture of service by working with Senator Young and me to take up and pass the Unity through Service Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe that Americans are ready and willing to answer the call to serve and come together to meet the challenges that we face at the local, national, and international level. We just need to create the conditions to mobilize them. That is why I am proud to join Senators Young and Coons and Representatives Houlahan, Panetta, Bacon. and Bergman in introducing the Unity through Service Act. Our bipartisan legislation is based on the recommendations of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. The Commission was established in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Back then, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain and I were trying look at how we could encourage the most qualified individuals of all backgrounds to volunteer for military service. We quickly understood that the question was also about something bigger. What does it mean for the Nation when so many people do not have the common experience of service, whether in the military or in their communities? And what happens when those who want to serve do not have the opportunity to do so? With those thoughts in mind, we established the Commission to look at the issue of service comprehensively. One of the statutory mandates of the Commission was to explore the ``means by which to foster a greater attitude and ethos of service among United States youth.'' We as a government must be prepared to invest in what is truly one of our Nation's greatest assets--our public servants. This has been an urgent matter for decades, but it is ever more urgent today. The Commission published its final report and recommendations just as the COVID-19 pandemic began to grip the Nation. It set a 10-year goal for 5 million Americans to begin participating in military, national, or public service each year. Additionally, the Commission set targets for ensuring there are more than enough qualified individuals seeking to serve in the Armed Forces, and it called for modernizing government personnel systems to attract and enable Americans with critical skills to enter public service. The Unity through Service Act would help to implement those recommendations, providing the architecture and focus to mobilize a whole-of-government approach. Specifically, the Unity through Service Act would establish an Interagency Council on Service to coordinate and lead initiatives that extend across military, national, and public service. The Council would be tasked with preparing and submitting to the President a national strategy on service, including a review of current programs, initiatives, and online content. The legislation would promote cross- service marketing, recruitment, and retention through joint advertising campaigns and shared market research. It would also ensure that transitioning military members and AmeriCorps members are informed about other service opportunities open to them. The Unity through Service Act would elevate all forms of service, leveraging the strengths of existing programs and would provide a roadmap for bringing a new generation of Americans together in service to our Nation. Americans want to serve. We just need to provide the opportunities and the connections for them to do so. I urge my colleagues to join us in reaffirming our national culture of service by working with Senator Young and me to take up and pass the Unity through Service Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we all know too well, rates of suicide have risen to epidemic levels in the United States, with suicide now the 10th leading cause of death in the country. On average, there are 135 suicides every day, roughly one every 11 minutes. These are staggering statistics behind which there are tragic stories of loss. That is why I am introducing the Suicide Prevention Act with my colleague Senator Moran. Our bipartisan bill would provide new resources to help turn the tide on this disturbing trend. It would authorize new funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to partner with State and local health departments to improve surveillance of suicide attempts and other incidences of self-harm. Data collection efforts regarding suicide often occur years after the fact, which limits the ability of State and local health departments, as well as community organizations, to recognize trends early and intervene. CDC has already begun some of this work, but the Suicide Prevention Act would expand these efforts and enhance data collection so we can respond to new trends quickly and save lives. We know that emergency healthcare providers are often at the frontlines of responding to suicide attempts. Approximately 37 percent of individuals without a previous history of mental health or substance abuse who die by suicide make an emergency department visit within the year before their death. According to the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, the risk of suicide is greatest within a month of discharge from the hospital. To help ensure our emergency healthcare professionals have the tools to respond, the bill would also authorize funding for a grant program within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, to help better train emergency department staff to implement suicide prevention strategies, screen at- risk patients, and refer patients to appropriate followup care. The legislation would also require SAMHSA to develop best practices for such programs so that healthcare providers are able to provide their patients with the best possible care and advice. Nationwide, suicide rates have skyrocketed over the last decade. In 2022, over 49,000 Americans lost their lives to suicide. That same year, there were 1.6 million suicide attempts. We must renew our efforts on suicide prevention and take a holistic approach. We must also continue to invest in 9-8-8, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Senator Moran and I passed legislation in 2022 that increased funding for the lifeline and made key improvements, such as enhance texting capability, but we must do more. Today, I am pleased to have the opportunity to partner with Senator Moran once again by introducing the Suicide Prevention Act. This bill is one more step Congress can take to combat the the mental health and suicide crisis in our country. I look forward to working with Senator Moran and advocates in Rhode Island and across the country to make a difference in addressing this epidemic.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we all know too well, rates of suicide have risen to epidemic levels in the United States, with suicide now the 10th leading cause of death in the country. On average, there are 135 suicides every day, roughly one every 11 minutes. These are staggering statistics behind which there are tragic stories of loss. That is why I am introducing the Suicide Prevention Act with my colleague Senator Moran. Our bipartisan bill would provide new resources to help turn the tide on this disturbing trend. It would authorize new funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to partner with State and local health departments to improve surveillance of suicide attempts and other incidences of self-harm. Data collection efforts regarding suicide often occur years after the fact, which limits the ability of State and local health departments, as well as community organizations, to recognize trends early and intervene. CDC has already begun some of this work, but the Suicide Prevention Act would expand these efforts and enhance data collection so we can respond to new trends quickly and save lives. We know that emergency healthcare providers are often at the frontlines of responding to suicide attempts. Approximately 37 percent of individuals without a previous history of mental health or substance abuse who die by suicide make an emergency department visit within the year before their death. According to the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, the risk of suicide is greatest within a month of discharge from the hospital. To help ensure our emergency healthcare professionals have the tools to respond, the bill would also authorize funding for a grant program within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, to help better train emergency department staff to implement suicide prevention strategies, screen at- risk patients, and refer patients to appropriate followup care. The legislation would also require SAMHSA to develop best practices for such programs so that healthcare providers are able to provide their patients with the best possible care and advice. Nationwide, suicide rates have skyrocketed over the last decade. In 2022, over 49,000 Americans lost their lives to suicide. That same year, there were 1.6 million suicide attempts. We must renew our efforts on suicide prevention and take a holistic approach. We must also continue to invest in 9-8-8, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Senator Moran and I passed legislation in 2022 that increased funding for the lifeline and made key improvements, such as enhance texting capability, but we must do more. Today, I am pleased to have the opportunity to partner with Senator Moran once again by introducing the Suicide Prevention Act. This bill is one more step Congress can take to combat the the mental health and suicide crisis in our country. I look forward to working with Senator Moran and advocates in Rhode Island and across the country to make a difference in addressing this epidemic.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act with Senator Lummis. Our bipartisan bill would help more families purchase an affordable home and maintain our housing supply by strengthening the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Title I Loan Program. Like its better known title II sister program, FHA Title I expands access to housing and boosts affordability for families by insuring private market loans. However, title I is targeted towards two underserved portions of our housing market--manufactured homes and property improvement. For decades, title I has enabled families to access stable, affordable housing, while also helping maintain our Nation's housing stock. Indeed, manufactured homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country, and property improvement loans help prevent more single-family homes and apartments from falling into disrepair and out of our housing supply. These loans should be an important tool in helping to close our nationwide housing shortage, which the Brookings Institution estimates at nearly 5 million homes. However, outdated loan limits and statutory restrictions have turned title I from an effective program into a missed opportunity. From the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, lenders offered 15,000 to 25,000 title I manufactured home loans each year. But in 2021, only three loans were issued. Similarly, lenders have gone from making more than 70,000 title I property improvement loans annually in the 1990s to making fewer than 1,000 in 2022. That is a 99-percent drop in loan volume or in other words, as many as 99,000 fewer homes being bought, preserved, and included in our housing stock each year. The Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act would refurbish title I and return it to our housing toolbox. It would expand loan limits and terms for all title I loans--making the program fit market demand and needs. Perhaps more importantly, the bill would finally allow FHA to index property improvement loans for inflation and expand the data it uses to set manufactured home loan limits, ensuring title I will remain a crucial tool as home costs rise in future years. Finally, our legislation makes accessible dwelling units, ADUs, which are small housing units added to a single-family property, eligible for title I financing. This small addition to title I will make the program an even more powerful home-creation program than it was during its prior peak years and will particularly help families who want to provide a safe, comfortable place for aging parents or young adult children to live. Collectively, these improvements would help more families own a home, remain in homes they have spent decades in, and find an affordable place to live. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and support its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and Senators Van Hollen, Cortez Masto, Smith, and Klobuchar in introducing legislation that would permanently reauthorize the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Council or USICH. The Council was established during the Reagan administration as part of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Over the last three and a half decades, it has led and coordinated the Federal Government's response to homelessness. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing, HEARTH, Act, which I authored along with Senator Collins, expanded the Council's role, allowing it to work with public, nonprofit, and private stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness. Despite its minimal budget and small staff, the Council has helped guide Federal, State, and local stakeholders in deploying their resources in a smart, effective, and coordinated fashion. The results have been evident. In the decade after USICH published its first plan, overall homelessness declined 9 percent. Family and veteran homelessness declined significantly, as well, with the total numbers dropping nearly 30 percent and 50 percent respectively. In fact, the Council has been able to help 85 communities and 3 States effectively end veteran homelessness. Despite these successes, homelessness has persisted, and skyrocketing housing prices since 2020 have brought a new surge in homelessness. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress found that, ``[o]n a single night in January 2024, 771,480 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States.'' This is a record number of Americans experiencing homelessness since the count began. The face of homelessness--which individuals lack a safe, stable home--is also changing. Families with children had the largest increase in homelessness from 2023 to 2024. Indeed, nearly 150,000 children were experiencing homelessness on a single night last year. This staggering increase in homelessness is happening across the country. USICH helps us meet this challenge by guiding how its 19 Federal member Agencies deploy and leverage their resources with non-Federal partners to help communities effectively address homelessness. We know that smart, coordinated investments in programs that address homelessness and increase affordable housing pay additional dividends. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has found that taxpayers pay an average of $35,578 per year on each chronically homeless individual, while ``based on 22 different studies from across the country, providing permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' In short, helping people avoid homelessness not only helps them, it also saves taxpayers money. USICH's coordinating work helps make our investments to address homelessness more informed and more effective. Indeed, the Council continues to prove that the government can work and save money in the process. I thank HousingWorks RI for its support, and I urge my colleagues to join us in permanently authorizing USICH.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Helping More Families Save Act with Senator Britt. This bipartisan legislation would help more families in HUD-assisted housing build savings and improve their financial security by creating a pilot program for Family Self- Sufficiency, FSS, universal escrow accounts. The FSS Program was established under the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 to help low-income families boost savings and improve their professional, educational, and financial standing. In 2018, I worked with then-Senator Roy Blunt to expand the program to cover more households. Today, millions of public housing residents, Housing Choice Voucher Program participants, and residents of project-based rental assistance, PBRA, housing are eligible for FSS. FSS provides two key tools for its participants. First, households work with FSS coordinators to develop long-term financial, professional, or educational goals. FSS coordinators also help connect participants with resources, training, and employment opportunities. Second, the program encourages FSS families to save by providing them with an interest-bearing escrow account. Participants who increase their incomes deposit a portion of their additional earnings into their escrow account instead of paying higher rent, as is typically required under federally subsidized housing programs. Upon graduation from the Program, families can use their escrowed savings to pay for job-related expenses, move to private market housing, buy a home, or save for the future. After more than 30 years, FSS has become a proven financial independence program. For example, in 2022, 34 percent of FSS graduates no longer needed Federal rental assistance within 1 year of leaving FSS, and nearly 10 percent of graduates were ultimately able to purchase their own home. On average, FSS participants with escrow savings graduated from the program with approximately $10,000 in their accounts. This is no small sum, and it helps HUD-assisted families strengthen their financial stability and move towards greater economic independence. Despite the program's success and broad eligibility, program participation was effectively capped at about 70,000 enrollees in 2022 simply due to a lack of Federal funding for the required FSS coordinators. The Helping More Families Save Act would help more Americans access the program by creating a new universal escrow pilot. Under the bill, public housing agencies, PHAs, and PBRA property owners could offer 5,000 additional households escrow accounts identical to those under the current FSS Program without having to wait for an FSS coordinator to be funded by the Federal Government. PHA and PBRA property owners would not be required to offer coordinator services to these new participants, although we expect many will work to offer counseling and support on their own or with outside partners. Moreover, we expect that this pilot will show that those enrolled in the program will be successful and make financially sound decisions. Our pilot program would help more low-income families improve their financial security, achieve economic independence, and possibly even purchase their own homes, all with minimal cost to the Federal Government. This is a commonsense, bipartisan proposal that would help more Americans pull themselves out of poverty. It is a win for families, the Federal budget, and our economy. I thank Senator Britt for coleading this legislation and Compass Working Capital and LISC for their support. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor the Helping More Families Save Act and support its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act with Senator Lummis. Our bipartisan bill would help more families purchase an affordable home and maintain our housing supply by strengthening the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Title I Loan Program. Like its better known title II sister program, FHA Title I expands access to housing and boosts affordability for families by insuring private market loans. However, title I is targeted towards two underserved portions of our housing market--manufactured homes and property improvement. For decades, title I has enabled families to access stable, affordable housing, while also helping maintain our Nation's housing stock. Indeed, manufactured homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country, and property improvement loans help prevent more single-family homes and apartments from falling into disrepair and out of our housing supply. These loans should be an important tool in helping to close our nationwide housing shortage, which the Brookings Institution estimates at nearly 5 million homes. However, outdated loan limits and statutory restrictions have turned title I from an effective program into a missed opportunity. From the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, lenders offered 15,000 to 25,000 title I manufactured home loans each year. But in 2021, only three loans were issued. Similarly, lenders have gone from making more than 70,000 title I property improvement loans annually in the 1990s to making fewer than 1,000 in 2022. That is a 99-percent drop in loan volume or in other words, as many as 99,000 fewer homes being bought, preserved, and included in our housing stock each year. The Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act would refurbish title I and return it to our housing toolbox. It would expand loan limits and terms for all title I loans--making the program fit market demand and needs. Perhaps more importantly, the bill would finally allow FHA to index property improvement loans for inflation and expand the data it uses to set manufactured home loan limits, ensuring title I will remain a crucial tool as home costs rise in future years. Finally, our legislation makes accessible dwelling units, ADUs, which are small housing units added to a single-family property, eligible for title I financing. This small addition to title I will make the program an even more powerful home-creation program than it was during its prior peak years and will particularly help families who want to provide a safe, comfortable place for aging parents or young adult children to live. Collectively, these improvements would help more families own a home, remain in homes they have spent decades in, and find an affordable place to live. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and support its passage.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and Senators Van Hollen, Cortez Masto, Smith, and Klobuchar in introducing legislation that would permanently reauthorize the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Council or USICH. The Council was established during the Reagan administration as part of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Over the last three and a half decades, it has led and coordinated the Federal Government's response to homelessness. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing, HEARTH, Act, which I authored along with Senator Collins, expanded the Council's role, allowing it to work with public, nonprofit, and private stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness. Despite its minimal budget and small staff, the Council has helped guide Federal, State, and local stakeholders in deploying their resources in a smart, effective, and coordinated fashion. The results have been evident. In the decade after USICH published its first plan, overall homelessness declined 9 percent. Family and veteran homelessness declined significantly, as well, with the total numbers dropping nearly 30 percent and 50 percent respectively. In fact, the Council has been able to help 85 communities and 3 States effectively end veteran homelessness. Despite these successes, homelessness has persisted, and skyrocketing housing prices since 2020 have brought a new surge in homelessness. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress found that, ``[o]n a single night in January 2024, 771,480 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States.'' This is a record number of Americans experiencing homelessness since the count began. The face of homelessness--which individuals lack a safe, stable home--is also changing. Families with children had the largest increase in homelessness from 2023 to 2024. Indeed, nearly 150,000 children were experiencing homelessness on a single night last year. This staggering increase in homelessness is happening across the country. USICH helps us meet this challenge by guiding how its 19 Federal member Agencies deploy and leverage their resources with non-Federal partners to help communities effectively address homelessness. We know that smart, coordinated investments in programs that address homelessness and increase affordable housing pay additional dividends. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has found that taxpayers pay an average of $35,578 per year on each chronically homeless individual, while ``based on 22 different studies from across the country, providing permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' In short, helping people avoid homelessness not only helps them, it also saves taxpayers money. USICH's coordinating work helps make our investments to address homelessness more informed and more effective. Indeed, the Council continues to prove that the government can work and save money in the process. I thank HousingWorks RI for its support, and I urge my colleagues to join us in permanently authorizing USICH.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Helping More Families Save Act with Senator Britt. This bipartisan legislation would help more families in HUD-assisted housing build savings and improve their financial security by creating a pilot program for Family Self- Sufficiency, FSS, universal escrow accounts. The FSS Program was established under the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 to help low-income families boost savings and improve their professional, educational, and financial standing. In 2018, I worked with then-Senator Roy Blunt to expand the program to cover more households. Today, millions of public housing residents, Housing Choice Voucher Program participants, and residents of project-based rental assistance, PBRA, housing are eligible for FSS. FSS provides two key tools for its participants. First, households work with FSS coordinators to develop long-term financial, professional, or educational goals. FSS coordinators also help connect participants with resources, training, and employment opportunities. Second, the program encourages FSS families to save by providing them with an interest-bearing escrow account. Participants who increase their incomes deposit a portion of their additional earnings into their escrow account instead of paying higher rent, as is typically required under federally subsidized housing programs. Upon graduation from the Program, families can use their escrowed savings to pay for job-related expenses, move to private market housing, buy a home, or save for the future. After more than 30 years, FSS has become a proven financial independence program. For example, in 2022, 34 percent of FSS graduates no longer needed Federal rental assistance within 1 year of leaving FSS, and nearly 10 percent of graduates were ultimately able to purchase their own home. On average, FSS participants with escrow savings graduated from the program with approximately $10,000 in their accounts. This is no small sum, and it helps HUD-assisted families strengthen their financial stability and move towards greater economic independence. Despite the program's success and broad eligibility, program participation was effectively capped at about 70,000 enrollees in 2022 simply due to a lack of Federal funding for the required FSS coordinators. The Helping More Families Save Act would help more Americans access the program by creating a new universal escrow pilot. Under the bill, public housing agencies, PHAs, and PBRA property owners could offer 5,000 additional households escrow accounts identical to those under the current FSS Program without having to wait for an FSS coordinator to be funded by the Federal Government. PHA and PBRA property owners would not be required to offer coordinator services to these new participants, although we expect many will work to offer counseling and support on their own or with outside partners. Moreover, we expect that this pilot will show that those enrolled in the program will be successful and make financially sound decisions. Our pilot program would help more low-income families improve their financial security, achieve economic independence, and possibly even purchase their own homes, all with minimal cost to the Federal Government. This is a commonsense, bipartisan proposal that would help more Americans pull themselves out of poverty. It is a win for families, the Federal budget, and our economy. I thank Senator Britt for coleading this legislation and Compass Working Capital and LISC for their support. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor the Helping More Families Save Act and support its passage.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this resolution disapproving of the CFPB's rule defining larger participants of a market for general-use digital consumer payment applications, which will make consumers more susceptible to fraud. In November, the CFPB published a rule to extend oversight over Big Tech companies that offer mobile payments and digital wallets. Companies like Cash App, Venmo, Google, and Apple now handle billions of dollars in consumer transactions per year. Everyone knows someone who has either been defrauded or scammed on one of these applications, and everyone also knows how difficult it can be to get your money back, even if your savings get wiped out. The CFPB took a very sensible approach to update our financial regulations to address this problem. The CFPB's rule places big tech companies that handle your money under Federal oversight in order to make sure they are following the law. If these big tech companies want to act like banks, then they should be subject to similar consumer protection requirements as banks. Under the CFPB's rule, someone is making sure consumers actually get reimbursed when they are victims of fraud. It means that fraudsters are having a harder time stealing people's savings, and it means greater protection against sophisticated scammers that are hacking people's phone and email accounts. If this resolution is adopted, there is no going back. It will preclude the CFPB from adopting substantially similar consumer protections in the future. Big Tech will operate under its own rules, and consumers will be vulnerable. And it is no coincidence that this CRA vote comes only 1 month after Elon Musk announced that he would be starting his own digital payment company--what a coincidence. A vote in favor of this resolution is a vote to strip Federal oversight of Elon Musk's payment company. It is a vote to make it easier for Elon Musk to shirk his obligation to reimburse the American people when they are cheated out of their money on his platform. Elon Musk wins; the American people lose. I hope my Republican colleagues will join us to protect this eminently sensible rule, and I urge my colleagues to oppose his resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on day one, President Trump lit the fuse on Elon Musk's plan to hollow out the Federal Government by changing the name of an obscure technical office within the White House, the U.S. Digital Services, USDS, and called it DOGE, without congressional authorization, and giving it extraordinary reach into the operations of the Federal Agencies. Since then, we have heard report after report about how Mr. Musk and DOGE have rammed their way into Agencies not to make smart decisions, not to improve efficiency, not to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, but to disrupt, denigrate, and demoralize. And along the way, DOGE has made incredible blunders such as firing and then scrambling to rehire employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration. Let me repeat that. Mr. Musk and his minions fired the people who keep nuclear weapons safe, and then someone realized, fortunately, within a few days that they had to come back. And here is another example: Musk and his hackers made the CIA send an unclassified email with the names of its recent hires. Boy, if I was in the Russian Security Service, I would love to get a list--which they did--of everyone who is going into the CIA. They also cut staff from the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Weather Service who prevent and warn every American of travel and weather dangers. It goes beyond that. Agricultural interests listen daily to the reports, the accurate reports of the Weather Service, so they can plan their crops, so they can plan everything--and that is being withered away. And I think the ultimate goal is to privatize it, which is not the best way to go. These actions don't just reflect incredible incompetence; they are dangerous. They undermine national security and increase risks for American citizens. In any other setting, blunders like these would be grounds for firing, but Musk and DOGE operate with arrogance, impunity, and zero transparency. Millions of Americans are asking: Who are these people? As the ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, the subcommittee that ostensibly oversees the budget for the White House, USDS, and DOGE, I am asking the same question. Because Congress, like the American people, is being kept in the dark. As appropriators, we typically work together on a bipartisan basis-- no matter which party is in the White House--to get information, to conduct oversight, to ensure that Federal dollars are spent in accordance with the laws passed by Congress. But now, without authorization from Congress, DOGE is recklessly slashing its way through virtually every Federal Agency, from the Office of Personnel Management to Treasury to HUD to State to USAID to the Department of Defense and more. It is vital that we understand what DOGE is and isn't. While Elon Musk tells us and the American people that DOGE is ``maximally transparent,'' it is not. We still do not have answers to fundamental questions like: What is the scope of DOGE's work? How many people work at DOGE? And who are they? Do they also hold jobs outside the Federal Government? What are their financial holdings and potential conflicts of interest? Do they have allegiances to foreign governments? Will DOGE respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act? What are its plans to reform Agencies? Who is DOGE firing and why? And many, many other questions. And, unfortunately, when DOGE shares information, it is frequently wrong. As the New York Times reported, five of DOGE's biggest claimed savings were deleted from its website because they were inaccurate. This includes a canceled USAID contract for $650 million, which was counted by DOGE three times; a canceled Social Security contract was erroneously listed as being worth $232 million, instead of the actual $560,000; and a canceled ICE contract was listed as saving $8 billion instead of $8 million. If you are going to name something the Department of Government Efficiency, don't you owe it to the taxpayers to actually do a good job? On top of having zero accountability, DOGE's legal authority to operate is dubious. DOGE has, essentially, taken over the USDS, which was originally established to help Federal Agencies more adeptly utilize technology to serve the American people. Over the years, USDS helped establish everything from Direct File, which helps taxpayers file their taxes for free, to direct-mail COVID tests to a successful online passport renewal program. DOGE is now using the hollowed shell of USDS to illegally undo the American Federal Government, moving from Agency to Agency, cutting congressionally appropriated Federal spending, priorities, and even dismantling entire Agencies. The bottom line is that DOGE, without congressional authorization and without direct funding from Congress, is acting to undermine the Federal Government. And, frankly, contempt to the U.S. Congress as a constitutional body who creates the law. The President's challenge in the Constitution is to enforce the laws, not to circumvent the Congress of the United States. Based on press reports, DOGE appears to be populated by a mixture of unelected billionaires, tech executives, and unvetted, inexperienced people, including an individual who was found to have posted racist tweets. This gang is being granted access to America's most sensitive data like your bank accounts, your Social Security accounts, and, it would seem, a host of classified intelligence. And how are they using this information? How are they protecting this information from our enemies? Is it being shared with outside entities? Is DOGE simply being used to give Mr. Musk, his companies, and his billionaire friends an advantage when competing for government contracts? We simply don't know what this gang is doing inside the government. Every single day that passes without transparency and congressional access to information about DOGE's funding, staffing, and scope of work is a moment too long. With the current continuing resolution due to expire on March 14, we have big decisions to make. My hope is that these decisions can be made on a bipartisan basis informed by the facts, but we cannot responsibly fund the government if we do not understand how DOGE has infiltrated it, made it less efficient and less responsive to taxpayers, and, essentially, has circumvented the constitutional responsibilities of the U.S. Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a very painful milestone. This week marks the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Over the past 3 years, the world has witnessed the incredible bravery and resolve of the Ukrainian people as they have stood up to Russia's unspeakable brutality and destruction. We have seen--and, indeed, the United States should take great pride in having led--an impressive coalition of nations coming together to support Ukraine in this fight to preserve its democracy. At the same time, an alarming convergence of authoritarian states-- Russia, China, Iran, Belarus, and North Korea--have banded together to enable Russia's illegal war of choice. As we mark this milestone, we are faced with another frightening set of developments. President Trump has set his sights on negotiations with Vladimir Putin to win the war. But before reaching the negotiating table, Mr. Trump has appeared so eager to reach a deal that he has been willing to acquiesce to Russian demands for essentially nothing in return. Even worse, he has deliberately excluded Ukraine and Europe from the discussion. We have seen this playbook before, most recently in Afghanistan. In 2020, President Trump, eager to achieve a quick deal, negotiated directly with the Taliban and excluded the Afghan Government from the negotiating table. He capitulated to Taliban demands, including the release of over 5,000 Taliban fighters, and blindly agreed to a 1-year withdrawal timeline, even as evidence mounted that the Taliban was not holding up the meager demands in the agreement. I fear President Trump has not learned any new negotiating skills in the 5 years since. The tenets of his approach to Ukraine and Europe appear to be the same: Exclude and criticize American allies, capitulate to our enemies, and withdraw support without any assurance of success. Earlier this month, Munich was the scene of another capitulation, when Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Hegseth kicked off Trump's giveaway campaign to President Putin. The historical irony is unmistakable, since Munich is a place that has inauspiciously become a shorthand for the ``appeasement'' of tyrants. In 1932, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain left his meeting with Adolf Hitler in Munich. And after surrendering Czechoslovakia in exchange for a peace pledge, when he returned to England, Chamberlain waved about a piece of paper with Hitler's promise and declared, ``Peace in our time.'' In reality, it was the beginning of the capitulation that would lead inextricably to the greatest war in history. Hopefully, this administration's rush to appease Vladimir Putin will not lead to the carnage like that of World War II. But it well may cost Ukraine its sovereignty and independence while also undermining the international order--the very same order that America and her allies created from the ashes of World War II. Let's review the bidding so far. To begin, Defense Secretary Hegseth's speech in Brussels at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group set a shameful tone for the American delegation in Europe. Ukraine Defense Contact Group, or UDCG, was created by the United States under the Biden administration. It has organized and led the international efforts to support Ukraine, which has enabled Ukrainians to significantly repel the Russian invasion and continue the fight to protect their homeland. The United States has led this effort throughout the war. I regret that Secretary Hegseth's first appearance marked the retreat of our role as leader of the UDCG. In his remarks, he said: [W]e must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's . . . 2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. He further stated: [T]he United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. In essence, Secretary Hegseth conceded away our most important leverage against Russia. His statements, echoed by President Trump and Vice President Vance, have already badly weakened and undermined our negotiating position by gifting the Russians with several unilateral concessions. All of these forfeits were made without any apparent consultation with the Ukraine or our NATO allies. Again, the shortsightedness of President Trump's, Hegseth's, and Vance's statements are alarming. NATO has been the bulwark against Russian aggression in Europe since 1949. The alliance has more than doubled its membership since its founding. Central to the enlargement is NATO's open-door policy, enshrined in article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which affirms a core NATO tenet that any European nation that demonstrates a willingness to contribute to our collective security and the values and obligation of the NATO alliance may seek membership. Vladimir Putin does not get to dictate who may or may not become a member of the NATO alliance, just as his Soviet predecessors could not stop the membership prospects of Poland or Hungary or Germany. To preemptively surrender admission to NATO is national security malpractice and only benefits Vladimir Putin. Finally, Secretary Hegseth declared that Europe and NATO are no longer priorities of the Trump administration. In his words: We're . . . here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States . . . from being primarily focused on the security of Europe. Further: The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland. We must--and we are--focusing on security of our own borders. I agree that the security of America's homeland is our No. 1 national security mission, but I reject Secretary Hegseth's myopic view that the American national security establishment is so fragile and so constrained that it must shift the entirety of its focus to the border security mission, at the expense of other national security imperatives. Moreover, border protection is a civilian law enforcement mission. Deploying large numbers of military forces to support the Border Patrol is a gross misallocation of forces and raises numerous legal issues. The administration's shameful claims have been a shock to Ukraine, NATO, Europe, and the democratic world at large. They have provided great comfort to Putin and autocrats everywhere. In addition to Secretary Hegseth's speech, Vice President Vance took the stage in Munich and further eroded our status in the world. He castigated European allies for his perceived grievances with their domestic politics and alleged movements away from ``democratic values,'' while at the same time remaining silent on the brutal dictators in Russia and Belarus who have never had a free or fair election in the course of their tenure. President Trump gave his tip of the hat to autocracy last week when he attempted to revise history by alleging that Ukraine, not Russia, started the war and that President Zelenskyy was the ``dictator'' in this situation. These categorically false statements are either a product of deliberate deceit or historical delusion. President Trump even directed the Acting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to vote against a U.N. resolution condemning Russia's war against Ukraine. The United States instead voted in a bloc with Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other authoritarian nations, which is a stunning reversal of decades of American foreign policy. This toxic revisionist history has now pervaded his political nominees as well. Throughout the week, his political appointees have contorted themselves in order to avoid acknowledging the fact that Russia was responsible for starting the war in Ukraine. This is something straight out of North Korea, where ``facts'' are the sole purview of the Dear Leader. We must also note the deafening silence from many of my Republican colleagues. Many Republicans claimed for years to be unapologetic supporters of Ukraine who were outraged by the perception that President Biden was not sending enough U.S. support to Ukraine. But now they appear to be standing by silently as facts are erased, as the pipeline of aid to Ukraine peters to a halt, as the Trump administration disbands Federal task forces established to seize the assets of Russian oligarchs and guard against foreign election interference and disinformation campaigns. Silence is complicity. We cannot allow this to continue. If we are going down the path of negotiation with Russia, we must act to strengthen our hand in these negotiations. Ironically, Russia is in a very weak negotiating position. Let us briefly review Putin's situation. Over the course of 3 years, Ukraine has inflicted a staggering cost on Russia. Putin has lost 200,000 soldiers, and many hundreds of thousands more were wounded. He has lost hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment and weapons. Indeed, Russia's weapons and logistical stocks are perilously diminished. Their closest ally in the war--Iran--is weaker than it has been in decades due to Israeli and U.S. actions. North Korean soldiers, sent to reinforce flagging Russian forces, are suffering severe casualty rates. Russia has been ousted from Syria, and its Wagner mercenaries in Africa are struggling to reorganize. The Russian economy is afloat but stagnant. Any shrewd negotiator should recognize that Russia is on the ropes. Now is not the time to appease Putin. This is a time to exert maximum pressure to bring him to the negotiating table hat in hand. There are three things we must do now. First, we must continue to pressure Russia economically. This means strengthening existing sanctions, identifying secondary sanctions, and bolstering sanctions enforcement and anti-evasion efforts. At the top of the effort to control the evasion of sanctions, we should be working with allies to combat the illicit oil trade, including efforts to go on the offensive against the so-called ghost fleet of aging tankers Russia employs to facilitate the export of oil and other sanctioned goods. Second, we must work with our European partners to impound and leverage Russia's frozen assets. Finally, we must ensure in both word and deed that Ukraine has our support and commitment to working with them to establish a just and lasting peace. However, instead of taking action to strengthen the negotiating hand on any of these fronts, the administration has shifted focus to the signing of a deal to exploit Ukraine's natural resources. Much remains to be seen about the shape of this agreement, but we do know it will take years, if not decades, to see substantial returns. A large number of Ukraine's rare earth deposits are actually located in Ukrainian territory that is currently contested or occupied by Russia. I am not sure how one is to square this agreement with Secretary Hegseth's comments about the forfeiture of Ukraine's sovereign territory. Furthermore, the deal includes no security guarantees from the United States, which the Ukrainians have--rightly, I believe--insisted upon. Security guarantees are essential to assure Ukraine that the United States is not simply interested in an enrichment scheme but is committed to the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Indeed, a just and lasting peace must be the final outcome. That is a United States national security imperative, one that has--at least until recently--enjoyed robust and vocal bipartisan support. We support Ukraine because we know that the war in Ukraine is not just a regional war; it is the most visible demonstration of the larger existential threat Russia poses to our national security. We support Ukraine to ensure that Vladimir Putin cannot achieve his goals, which are counter to our own national interests. We must be clear-eyed about this. If Putin succeeds in Ukraine, it will be the first piece in his long-stated promise to recreate the Soviet empire. If that happens, if we fail to learn from history and to see brutal and craven authoritarians for what they are and the threat they represent, we may again find America's sons and daughters sent overseas to fight on foreign shores. I urge my Republican colleagues and my Democratic colleagues--all my colleagues--to speak up and stand with Ukraine as they have done for so many years. Let us continue. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we celebrate Public Schools Week, Senate Republicans are preparing to confirm Linda McMahon, another of President Trump's billionaire patrons, as Secretary of Education, and I oppose such nomination. During her confirmation hearing, Mrs. McMahon demonstrated little knowledge of public education or the basic programs and functions of the Department of Education. Clearly, the choice of this nominee is not based on merit. But that does not matter because Mrs. McMahon was selected to be a front, as the Agency she hopes to lead is being dismantled by Elon Musk and DOGE. Indeed, while Mrs. McMahon was at her confirmation hearing, claiming that she would work to improve the Department of Education, Elon Musk's DOGE minions were at work firing people, taking back grants, compromising sensitive data, and laying the groundwork to eliminate the entire Agency. And on Valentine's Day, President Trump's Department of Education threatened to cut Federal funding from public schools, as well as colleges and universities, if they did not eliminate any program that the Trump administration deems as promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. During her confirmation hearing, Mrs. McMahon seemed unsure whether this edict meant that schools can't celebrate or teach classes on African-American history or host clubs like Special Olympics or Girls Who Code. As a reminder, by law, the Secretary of Education may not interfere with the content that schools teach, nor the academic standards that they set. Mrs. McMahon doesn't seem to know that. By the way, while Mr. Musk has been tearing the Department of Education apart from the inside, Republicans in Congress have passed punitive blueprints that will cut trillions from government services to the American people, including education, all to pay for tax cuts for the richest Americans and Big Business. In the Senate, the Republicans are calling for an unspecified $9 trillion in cuts. In the House, the Education and Workforce Committee must provide a minimum of $330 billion in cuts from education and job training programs. It is no wonder that educators, students, and families from across the country feel under siege. We know what this looks like because we see how teachers, students, and military families are reacting with dismay as our world-class Department of Defense schools are laboring under another Secretary intent on politicizing its Department and promoting an indoctrination agenda authorized by President Trump. I would like to take a moment to first thank all educators, school staff, family volunteers, and all community members who tirelessly work to equip our students for the future. We owe you a debt of gratitude and so much more than that. We need to recommit to strengthening our public schools and to investing in them. In the first part of the 20th century, it was the high school movement that broadly expanded educational attainment, preparing young Americans for success in a changing world and evolving economy. This movement featured professional educators and engaged families and communities. It was about general knowledge and practical application. This movement launched the United States as a world economic power. It was essential to our national defense, and it created the conditions for the success of the largest expansion of postsecondary education through the GI bill. The high school movement meant that soldiers returning from World War II already had high school diplomas and were ready for postsecondary education. Head Start, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Higher Education Act are some of our Federal laws that work to ensure that opportunities to learn and advance are not limited by income, race, ethnicity, or disability. The expansion of public education is a great American story. Yet, today, it sometimes seems to have been forgotten. Some argue that we do not need public schools, that we can offer vouchers or education savings accounts or homeschooling instead. Today, instead of freedom of inquiry and inclusion, we see policing of what schools can teach, what students can read, what they can discuss, and how they should think. This is a recipe for stifling creativity and the development of the skills needed for an ever-changing knowledge economy. We politicize and neglect public schools at our peril. They educate nearly 50 million students--our future. It is time that we treat public education as the priority it must be if we want a brighter future for our children and our grandchildren and our country. We should embark on a new public school movement--one that will strengthen and support the education profession, one that will ensure that all communities can provide modern, state-of-the-art facilities, one that will ensure that all students have the right to read--with evidence-based reading instruction, school libraries, books at home, diverse materials, and the freedom to choose what to read. Today, we are failing our public schools because we are not investing in them. For example, the average age of our public school facilities is 49 years. The GAO found that over half of our school districts in our country needed to replace or update major systems in more than half of their buildings. As a nation, we should commit to modernizing our school facilities. That is why I will be reintroducing the Rebuild America's Schools Act to invest $130 billion in our school facilities in the communities with the greatest need. We know there is a crisis in the education profession. Too many school districts struggle to hire and retain teachers. Too often, a career in teaching means financial struggles and little support to meet student needs. Additionally, we need a national focus on literacy. In 2024, the percentage of eighth graders reading below the basic level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress was the largest in the assessment's history, and the percentage of fourth graders who scored below the basic level was the largest in 20 years. Adults are not doing any better. Recent results of the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies show that overall scores in literacy and numeracy have decreased for U.S. adults, with adults scoring at the lowest level of proficiency in literacy, increasing from 19 percent in 2017 to 28 percent in 2023. This is a crisis. Eliminating the Department of Education does nothing to solve it. Instead of gutting educational funding and eliminating the Department of Education to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, Congress should address the acute literacy crisis for both adults and children across the Nation. We should be increasing funding for adult education--at least doubling it. We should increase resources for schools to provide evidence-based reading instruction by fully funding title I, increasing funding for the Comprehensive Literacy Development State Grant Program and for Innovative Approaches to Literacy grants. We should double the Pell grant and restore its purchasing power so students do not have to rely mostly on loans to pay for college. Sadly, none of this is on Mrs. McMahon's agenda. I urge my colleagues to join me in ushering in a new public education movement--a movement to ensure that this generation, as well as future ones, has the foundation to achieve their full potential and build a prosperous future. This nominee is not the person to lead such an effort. All indications are that she will actively work against it. So I encourage my colleagues to vote no on her confirmation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, initially, I want to make a very brief comment on the legislation my colleagues Senator Heinrich and Senator Kaine are advancing and which will be voted on later this afternoon. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, which would overturn President Trump's really sham energy emergency. At a time when the United States is already producing record amounts of oil and gas, the President wants to bypass laws and explore eminent domain to fast-track fossil fuel projects--not alternate energy projects, fossil fuel projects--and really not to lower prices or create jobs but to benefit his Big Oil donors, whom President Trump reportedly asked to donate $1 billion to his campaign. It sounds awfully like quid pro quo, which in the past was frowned upon by Presidents. The truth is, the President's Executive orders on energy, including his unlawful pause on investments from the Inflation Reduction Act, threaten to raise prices, kill good-paying American jobs, and cede economic opportunities to China. This is true in my home State of Rhode Island, where offshore wind companies worked hand in hand with the local communities, labor leaders, and local officials to invest in good-paying jobs for Rhode Island. The President's actions threaten that process. So I look forward to voting in favor of this resolution when it comes up later today.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, my key topic this morning is to speak about the tremendous value that NOAA--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--provides the American people. Over the past few weeks, we have heard alarming reports that the Trump administration wants to make good on its Project 2025 promise to ``break up and downsize'' and privatize portions of NOAA, including the National Weather Service. Destroying NOAA in this way would be an enormous blunder that would hurt our economy, hamper innovation, and increase the risks to American lives and property. The fact is that NOAA accounts for just one-tenth of 1 percent of the Federal budget. Yet it is delivering information and research that are absolutely vital to our economic prosperity. The reports we see on the local news, on the Weather Channel, and all our smart phones are built on forecasts and information generated by the National Weather Service and its array of scientists, satellites, and equipment. NOAA's tornado and hurricane warning systems provide local emergency managers critical information to prepare and respond to storms, often up to a week in advance. NOAA's aviation forecasts help ensure planes can take off and land at their destinations safely. NOAA's seasonal forecasts help farmers plant and grow our food. On the seas, NOAA's nautical charting and mapping services are used by everyone, from recreational boaters to international shipping companies. Its exploration of uncharted portions of the ocean floor give us insight into parts of our planet that are still as mysterious-- maybe even more mysterious than outer space. NOAA works to protect our fishing industry and bring American seafood to kitchen tables around the world, supporting 1.7 million fishing jobs, a quarter of a trillion dollars in seafood industry sales, and $117 billion in value-added impacts. And the list goes on and on and on. A study by the American Meteorological Society found that every dollar invested in the National Weather Service produces $73 in value to the American people. NOAA isn't a creature of Washington, DC. It is in Norman, OK, where NOAA's Storm Prediction Center tracks severe weather and tornado warnings. It is in Florida, where NOAA's National Hurricane Center monitors incoming storms to save lives and mitigate property loss. It is in Alaska, where scientists at NOAA's Fisheries Science Center work to maintain healthy fish populations to support local fishermen. It is in my home State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, where NOAA is building Atlantic Marine Operations Center, which will centralize its operations and take advantage of the expertise found in Rhode Island and our nearby States. We have an incredible concentration of oceanographic and marine scientists. We have the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport. They are leaders in research for underseas vessels, issues that are critical to our national security. The University of Rhode Island, just across the bay, has a nationally recognized School of Oceanography, and they have just devoted millions of dollars to upgrade and improve that. They will receive a new research vessel shortly. We have a partnership with Woods Hole in Massachusetts, just probably 45 minutes away. This is where the scientific center on oceanography is gradually emerging, and so NOAA's arrival will be beneficial. But it won't be a result simply of their efforts; it will be the combination of what we have already put in place. NOAA is, as I said, situated in an area where--the Blue Economy, which includes our Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, small shipyards, and one of the most important fishing ports on the east coast. They will become an integral part of that. So they will be sustained and supported at the same time they sustain and support our current efforts. As we face new and ever-growing challenges, including those driven by climate change and extreme weather, NOAA's work is more vital than ever. The President and Mr. Musk's reckless threats to NOAA's workforce, its budget, and its scientific research will make us less prepared and cost more money and, indeed, lives. Craig McLean, who served as NOAA's top scientist during the first Trump administration, said of the threats posed by the President and Elon Musk: It's dire. . . . The way that this is being handled is with ignorance and a sledgehammer rather than the appropriate discretion that's necessary. Protecting NOAA and its workforce is an investment in our future, an investment in our ability to predict and prepare for natural disasters and in the resilience of our planet. I urge the President and my colleagues to protect NOAA and ensure it can continue to carry out its mission and continue to provide valuable services to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am joining Senator Capito to introduce the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act of 2025 in order to improve access to needed therapies for children. Children are not just small adults. Drugs affect their developing bodies differently, so new treatments need to be studied carefully to ensure that they are appropriately prescribed and that dosages are properly adjusted. Additionally, drugs that are designed to treat a specific condition in adults may have enormous benefits in treating completely different illnesses in kids. But research is needed to unlock these potentially lifesaving possibilities. Unfortunately, drug development still leaves children behind. The legislation we are introducing today would help speed therapies to children who need them by making needed changes to the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA, and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, PREA--two laws that encourage and require the study of drugs in children. Data resulting from BPCA and PREA studies are added to drug labels to give parents and providers essential information on the safety and efficacy of drugs used in children. I was proud to have helped author these laws when I was a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. While we have made tremendous progress in advancing treatments for children because of these laws, there are gaps. For example, there is a loophole in PREA that exempts drug companies from pediatric study requirements when the treatment would only be used for a rare pediatric condition. There are close to 7,000 rare diseases without appropriate treatments, and the vast majority of these diseases affect children as well as adults. But in developing new drugs also known as orphan drugs to treat rare diseases, pharmaceutical developers focus their research on adult patients only since they are not required to study their impact on children. Since the majority of new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, are orphan drugs, this means that the majority of newly approved drugs have not been studied for their impacts on kids. This leaves doctors, parents, and sick kids in the dark about the best possible treatments. Our bill closes this loophole to require studies for children so that that they, too, can benefit from new and innovative treatments for rare diseases. In addition to this change, the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act would invest in pediatric studies of older, off-patent drugs. The FDA incentives and requirements under BPCA and PREA work for many newer drugs, but unfortunately cannot help encourage studies of older drugs. For this reason, in 2002, Congress authorized a program which funds the National Institutes of Health to conduct studies of off-patent drugs used in children that would never be completed otherwise. Drug studies are expensive, and costs have only increased since then, but the program has been flat-funded at $25 million since it was created more than 20 years ago. Our legislation would increase the authorization for the BPCA NIH program to ensure we have better data about older drugs to treat diseases in children. Lastly, the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act would give FDA the authority it needs to ensure that legally required pediatric studies are completed in a timely manner. Due dates for studies required by PREA are typically deferred by FDA until after the approval of the drug for adults, but FDA has no effective enforcement tools to ensure that these studies are completed on time--or at all. I am pleased to be working with my colleague Senator Capito again on pediatric health issues. We have worked closely for many years on pediatric cancer, first authoring the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, STAR, Act in 2015. That bill was signed into law in 2018, and we worked to fully fund the law every year since. I look forward to working with her to move the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act forward, to give children and their families more options for treatments.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, I am joining Senator Capito to introduce the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act of 2025 in order to improve access to needed therapies for children. Children are not just small adults. Drugs affect their developing bodies differently, so new treatments need to be studied carefully to ensure that they are appropriately prescribed and that dosages are properly adjusted. Additionally, drugs that are designed to treat a specific condition in adults may have enormous benefits in treating completely different illnesses in kids. But research is needed to unlock these potentially lifesaving possibilities. Unfortunately, drug development still leaves children behind. The legislation we are introducing today would help speed therapies to children who need them by making needed changes to the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA, and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, PREA--two laws that encourage and require the study of drugs in children. Data resulting from BPCA and PREA studies are added to drug labels to give parents and providers essential information on the safety and efficacy of drugs used in children. I was proud to have helped author these laws when I was a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. While we have made tremendous progress in advancing treatments for children because of these laws, there are gaps. For example, there is a loophole in PREA that exempts drug companies from pediatric study requirements when the treatment would only be used for a rare pediatric condition. There are close to 7,000 rare diseases without appropriate treatments, and the vast majority of these diseases affect children as well as adults. But in developing new drugs also known as orphan drugs to treat rare diseases, pharmaceutical developers focus their research on adult patients only since they are not required to study their impact on children. Since the majority of new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, are orphan drugs, this means that the majority of newly approved drugs have not been studied for their impacts on kids. This leaves doctors, parents, and sick kids in the dark about the best possible treatments. Our bill closes this loophole to require studies for children so that that they, too, can benefit from new and innovative treatments for rare diseases. In addition to this change, the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act would invest in pediatric studies of older, off-patent drugs. The FDA incentives and requirements under BPCA and PREA work for many newer drugs, but unfortunately cannot help encourage studies of older drugs. For this reason, in 2002, Congress authorized a program which funds the National Institutes of Health to conduct studies of off-patent drugs used in children that would never be completed otherwise. Drug studies are expensive, and costs have only increased since then, but the program has been flat-funded at $25 million since it was created more than 20 years ago. Our legislation would increase the authorization for the BPCA NIH program to ensure we have better data about older drugs to treat diseases in children. Lastly, the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act would give FDA the authority it needs to ensure that legally required pediatric studies are completed in a timely manner. Due dates for studies required by PREA are typically deferred by FDA until after the approval of the drug for adults, but FDA has no effective enforcement tools to ensure that these studies are completed on time--or at all. I am pleased to be working with my colleague Senator Capito again on pediatric health issues. We have worked closely for many years on pediatric cancer, first authoring the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, STAR, Act in 2015. That bill was signed into law in 2018, and we worked to fully fund the law every year since. I look forward to working with her to move the Innovation in Pediatric Drugs Act forward, to give children and their families more options for treatments.