Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Kim, Alsobrooks, and Blunt Rochester in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex.

Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.''

Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation's earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager, who subsequently trades in XYZ stock.

I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage.

But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading.

Current SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in response to questions for the record that ``following several high-profile insider trading cases, in 1988 Congress adopted the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act, but despite the statute's name, did not define `insider trading' because of lack of consensus of how to define it. Almost four decades later, the situation is even muddier as courts have applied the concept to various fact patterns.''

Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st-century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.''

Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``there is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.''

State regulators agree too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin has stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``defining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.''

This is precisely what my colleagues and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading.

Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information.

By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike.

I would like to thank my Banking Committee colleagues for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Kim, Alsobrooks, and Blunt Rochester in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex.

Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.''

Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation's earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager, who subsequently trades in XYZ stock.

I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage.

But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading.

Current SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in response to questions for the record that ``following several high-profile insider trading cases, in 1988 Congress adopted the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act, but despite the statute's name, did not define `insider trading' because of lack of consensus of how to define it. Almost four decades later, the situation is even muddier as courts have applied the concept to various fact patterns.''

Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st-century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.''

Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``there is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.''

State regulators agree too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin has stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``defining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.''

This is precisely what my colleagues and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading.

Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information.

By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike.

I would like to thank my Banking Committee colleagues for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act with my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Hawley. Our bipartisan bill will address a growing safety concern facing the transit industry: protecting the bus operators who serve as the backbone of our Nation's public transportation system.

Bus operators are being subjected to physical assaults, chemical attacks, and exposure to biohazards for simply carrying out their essential work. In my home State, a Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, RIPTA, busdriver was sprayed in the face with insecticide after asking a passenger to pay their fare. In Missouri, a Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, KCATA, busdriver was attacked with a baseball bat. In Ohio, a Central Ohio Transit Authority, COTA, busdriver was punched in the face after a passenger reached around a partial operator barrier, and in Pennsylvania, a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, SEPTA, busdriver sustained slash wounds to his face and abdomen when attacked by a passenger. The list goes on.

These attacks are part of a growing nationwide trend. Indeed, assaults on transit workers have increased by more than 36 percent since 2023, with an average of 43 assaults each day in 2025. These alarming statistics underscore the urgent need to better protect the dedicated operators who keep our public transportation systems running safely every day.

To address this growing crisis, the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act would require all new, federally funded buses to be equipped with protective barriers around the operator's seat, providing bus operators with a safer and more secure workspace. These barriers are not cosmetic; they are lifesaving. They fully enclose the operator's workstation, preventing unauthorized entry and protecting operators from physical assaults, thrown objects, chemical agents, and other dangerous hazards. while maintaining a clear line of sight so operators can safely perform their jobs.

This is a simple, commonsense solution. These barriers cost between $3,000 to $7,000 per bus, yet they can mean the difference between a bus operator making it home safely at the end of the day or becoming the victim of a violent assault.

I am pleased that the bill is supported by the Amalgamated Transit Union, ATU, the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, TTD, the SMART Transportation Division, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, and the Transport Workers Union of America, TWU. And in Rhode Island, the bill is supported by RIPTA and ATU Local 618. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hawley in supporting this commonsense legislation and in working to include it in the next Surface Transportation reauthorization.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act with my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Hawley. Our bipartisan bill will address a growing safety concern facing the transit industry: protecting the bus operators who serve as the backbone of our Nation's public transportation system.

Bus operators are being subjected to physical assaults, chemical attacks, and exposure to biohazards for simply carrying out their essential work. In my home State, a Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, RIPTA, busdriver was sprayed in the face with insecticide after asking a passenger to pay their fare. In Missouri, a Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, KCATA, busdriver was attacked with a baseball bat. In Ohio, a Central Ohio Transit Authority, COTA, busdriver was punched in the face after a passenger reached around a partial operator barrier, and in Pennsylvania, a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, SEPTA, busdriver sustained slash wounds to his face and abdomen when attacked by a passenger. The list goes on.

These attacks are part of a growing nationwide trend. Indeed, assaults on transit workers have increased by more than 36 percent since 2023, with an average of 43 assaults each day in 2025. These alarming statistics underscore the urgent need to better protect the dedicated operators who keep our public transportation systems running safely every day.

To address this growing crisis, the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act would require all new, federally funded buses to be equipped with protective barriers around the operator's seat, providing bus operators with a safer and more secure workspace. These barriers are not cosmetic; they are lifesaving. They fully enclose the operator's workstation, preventing unauthorized entry and protecting operators from physical assaults, thrown objects, chemical agents, and other dangerous hazards. while maintaining a clear line of sight so operators can safely perform their jobs.

This is a simple, commonsense solution. These barriers cost between $3,000 to $7,000 per bus, yet they can mean the difference between a bus operator making it home safely at the end of the day or becoming the victim of a violent assault.

I am pleased that the bill is supported by the Amalgamated Transit Union, ATU, the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, TTD, the SMART Transportation Division, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, and the Transport Workers Union of America, TWU. And in Rhode Island, the bill is supported by RIPTA and ATU Local 618. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hawley in supporting this commonsense legislation and in working to include it in the next Surface Transportation reauthorization.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Disaster Relief Fairness Act, along with Senator Whitehouse. This bill would approve major disaster declarations requested under the Trump administration for incidents that meet or exceed FEMA's damage thresholds. I wish that this bill was not needed, but it is because President Trump has chosen to block disaster assistance based on political partisanship.

According to the Urban Institute, roughly 84 percent of disaster requests from States that voted for President Trump in 2024 have been approved under this administration, compared to just 42 percent from States that voted for Kamala Harris. Further, POLITOCO reported that Republican-led States have waited 39 days on average for a decision compared to the 80-day average for Democratic-led states.

This winter, Rhode Island was struck by the largest blizzard in State history. Over 3 feet of snow fell on the State in a 24-hour period--the highest 1-day snowfall on record for Rhode Island. The storm hit Rhode Island with the

intensity of a category 2 hurricane, with heavy winds up to 74 miles per hour. It caused widespread power outages and tragically resulted in two fatalities and hundreds of emergency room visits. Local businesses faced prolonged closures due to disruptions to transportation, utilities, and public services across the State.

Following the storm, the State of Rhode Island worked with FEMA to develop a preliminary damage assessment of the storm's impact. The assessment found over $19 million in damages, amounting to more than nine times the threshold required for a major disaster declaration. Under any other administration, this disaster declaration would have been approved on the merits, given its historic nature and FEMA's own damage assessment. However, after months of waiting, on July 2, 2026, President Trump denied the request from Rhode Island with no explanation. On the same day Trump denied Rhode Island's request, he also denied requests from New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts that all reportedly exceeded FEMA's damage thresholds. Yet, that same week, he approved disaster aid for six Republican-led States.

Disaster aid and helping communities recover from deadly storms should never be political. Yet President Trump's record proves that he cannot be trusted to adjudicate disaster money fairly without invoking his own partisan biases. The Disaster Relief Fairness Act would address that problem by granting all disaster declarations requested between January 20, 2025 and January 20, 2029 that meet the Federal requirements and thresholds for assistance. This will help ensure that States and Tribes get the relief they need--regardless of who they voted for--and allow them to fully recover from disasters.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Whitehouse and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Disaster Relief Fairness Act, along with Senator Whitehouse. This bill would approve major disaster declarations requested under the Trump administration for incidents that meet or exceed FEMA's damage thresholds. I wish that this bill was not needed, but it is because President Trump has chosen to block disaster assistance based on political partisanship.

According to the Urban Institute, roughly 84 percent of disaster requests from States that voted for President Trump in 2024 have been approved under this administration, compared to just 42 percent from States that voted for Kamala Harris. Further, POLITOCO reported that Republican-led States have waited 39 days on average for a decision compared to the 80-day average for Democratic-led states.

This winter, Rhode Island was struck by the largest blizzard in State history. Over 3 feet of snow fell on the State in a 24-hour period--the highest 1-day snowfall on record for Rhode Island. The storm hit Rhode Island with the

intensity of a category 2 hurricane, with heavy winds up to 74 miles per hour. It caused widespread power outages and tragically resulted in two fatalities and hundreds of emergency room visits. Local businesses faced prolonged closures due to disruptions to transportation, utilities, and public services across the State.

Following the storm, the State of Rhode Island worked with FEMA to develop a preliminary damage assessment of the storm's impact. The assessment found over $19 million in damages, amounting to more than nine times the threshold required for a major disaster declaration. Under any other administration, this disaster declaration would have been approved on the merits, given its historic nature and FEMA's own damage assessment. However, after months of waiting, on July 2, 2026, President Trump denied the request from Rhode Island with no explanation. On the same day Trump denied Rhode Island's request, he also denied requests from New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts that all reportedly exceeded FEMA's damage thresholds. Yet, that same week, he approved disaster aid for six Republican-led States.

Disaster aid and helping communities recover from deadly storms should never be political. Yet President Trump's record proves that he cannot be trusted to adjudicate disaster money fairly without invoking his own partisan biases. The Disaster Relief Fairness Act would address that problem by granting all disaster declarations requested between January 20, 2025 and January 20, 2029 that meet the Federal requirements and thresholds for assistance. This will help ensure that States and Tribes get the relief they need--regardless of who they voted for--and allow them to fully recover from disasters.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Whitehouse and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Gordon S. Wood, esteemed scholar and historian whose notable works examined and guided our understanding of the ideals that birthed and gave rise to the early American Republic.

Born in 1933 in Concord, MA, site of the earliest skirmishes of the American Revolution, Gordon Wood's interest in early American history seems almost inevitable. Dr. Wood attended Tufts University; after earning his degree, he served in the U.S. Air Force in Japan. He earned his master of arts and Ph.D. in history at Harvard University. In 1969, the same year he began his illustrious career at Brown University in Providence, RI, he published his seminal work, ``The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787,'' which received the prestigious Bancroft Prize.

Throughout his career, Dr. Wood authored 10 books, including ``The Radicalism of the American Revolution,'' which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for History. It was this achievement that, perhaps, most forcefully launched him from the realm of academia into the world of public humanities. Dr. Wood's work analyzed how the Colonists' rejection of British monarchy radically shaped not only self- governance, but also the ways in which their nascent ideas of liberty and equality wove themselves into every facet of American society, politics, and culture.

In their brazen embrace of such radical notions, the Colonists transformed from King's subjects to citizens of a modern, democratic republic.

For 40 years at Brown University, Gordon Wood was a devoted teacher and humanist, a brilliant lecturer, and a mentor who engaged generations of students and critical thinkers. He supported new perspectives and historical analysis, welcomed discussion and debate. In recognition of his vigorous scholarship and vast contributions to the humanistic disciplines, President Obama presented Dr. Wood with the 2010 National Humanities Medal.

After retiring in 2008, he continued to research, write, and lecture widely. He held the prestigious title of Alva O. Way University Professor and Professor of History Emeritus at Brown University. Dr. Wood remained steadfast about the centrality of these revolutionary beliefs: liberty and equality, born out of the Enlightenment, boldly propelled early Americans to democratic republicanism and independence.

Today, these beliefs still sit at the very core of this great experiment in democracy.

Sadly, Dr. Wood passed away on June 7 at the age of 92. He was but weeks away from receiving a very special accolade on behalf of Brown University's semiquincentennial initiative--Brown 2026--for ``his unparalleled contributions to history and to education.'' Indeed, Dr. Wood's scholarship has added tremendous depth to our understanding of the ideas behind the founding of our Nation, which we will be celebrating with great fanfare in a few short days.

I want to join the Brown University community and a long list of colleagues, former students, and friends in extending my condolences to Dr. Wood's wife Louise, his children, and grandchildren. His kindness, humility, intellect, wisdom, and generous mentorship influenced countless people, and his legacy will live on to enrich and remind us of the hopeful potential that was and is America.

Gordon Wood will be rightfully remembered as one of the great scholars of American history. Today, I also ask that you remember him as a great American.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the U.S. military and its role as an apolitical institution.

For 250 years, our military's most important source of strength has been the trust of the American people. Their trust is hard won and relies upon the belief that our military remains above politics. I fear that trust is being eroded by the current Secretary of Defense.

I want to begin with Dwight Eisenhower. This month marks the 82nd anniversary of D-Day and the American invasion at Normandy. General Eisenhower spent the night before those landings walking among the men he was sending into battle, asking where they were from, what they did back home, and how were their families.

He wrote two messages after that meeting. The rallying call for the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force was one of those messages, but a second message--a message he had hoped no one would ever read--was written in case the landings failed.

It read:

If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine

alone.

Fortunately, he never had to send it, but he wrote it because he understood that the privilege of command carried the full weight of its consequences.

In 1947, Eisenhower addressed the graduating class at West Point. He had just finished commanding the largest military campaign in human history and witnessed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young Americans. He knew what war was, and this is what he told the cadets:

War is mankind's most tragic and stupid folly . . .

Fifteen years later, GEN Douglas MacArthur--no stranger to war himself--again stood at West Point and said:

[T]he soldier, above all other people, prays for peace . .

.

Those commanders understood that lethality is a terrible tool and humility is paramount in warfare.

Last weekend, Pete Hegseth traveled to Normandy to observe the D-Day anniversary. He stood at the American cemetery above the beaches where more than 2,500 Americans died in a single morning. Standing on that sacred historic site, Secretary Hegseth did not use his platform to express humility or unity, but to preach an anti-immigrant message. He said:

Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by

different dangerous ideologies. Beaches in Spain, in Italy,

in Greece and Bulgaria. Boats and men arrive. When will

European capitals do something about that invasion?

Well, many historians and veterans, hearing his words, called his speech grotesque. I would call it a desecration and an ignorant one also.

I doubt the Secretary knows that during World War II, more than 300,000 foreign-born individuals served in the U.S. Army alone. More than 109,000 of them were not even American citizens. They were men and women who crossed an ocean to fight and die for a country that had not yet fully claimed them and earned their citizenship through their service.

Hundreds of thousands more were first-generation Americans, the children of immigrants. For example, U.S. Navy coxswain Amin Isbir, the son of Syrian immigrants who settled in Pittsburgh, was among the first men off his landing craft when it reached Omaha Beach under heavy fire. After securing his landing craft on the beach, he was killed by a German shell while helping load a fellow wounded soldier onto a stretcher.

Coxswain Isbir and countless heroes like him are buried at Normandy, the sons and daughters of immigrants or immigrants themselves. Yet Secretary Hegseth stood above their graves and used the moment to deride the kind of people they were.

Last month, Secretary Hegseth got his own chance to address West Point cadets at their commencement. Where Eisenhower and McArthur spoke of wisdom, humility, and caution, Pete Hegseth boasted about lethality, claimed that West Point had turned into ``woke Princeton'' and made such bluster as ``you can't throw your pronouns at the enemy.''

He told the class of 2026, the most diverse class in the history of the U.S. Military Academy, that strength in diversity is ``the single dumbest phrase in military history.'' He mocked the service of women officers and criticized those with nonconservative political beliefs. He told a captive audience of newly commissioned officers that the presence of their classmates with different beliefs and demographics represented a lowering of standards. It was a shameful, divisive, and self-centered speech.

I attended West Point as a cadet. I taught there as a professor. I served on Active Duty as an Army officer. I hope I know what West Point stands for and what its graduates embrace: principled leadership to serve their soldiers and the Nation. Where past leaders asked West Point cadets to understand the economic, political, and spiritual aspirations of other peoples, to devote their lives as seriously to leading toward peace as preparing for war, Hegseth gave them a culture war speech.

Indeed, as James Bennet observed in The Economist:

[W]here past military leaders treated violence as a tragic

necessity, Hegseth celebrated it as righteous and thrilling.

His hyperpartisan remarks were both morally and factually wrong. But this was not an isolated incident. It is a part of a pattern of partisan political behavior antithetical to the role of the Secretary of Defense.

Last month, Secretary Hegseth traveled to Kentucky to campaign for a Republican House candidate the day before a primary election. He stood on a stage, attacked a sitting Republican Member of Congress, and told the crowd to send a different person to Washington. He announced a disclaimer, apparently ``for the lawyers,'' that he was there in his personal capacity.

That disclaimer is void. The Secretary of Defense does not have a personal capacity. He represents, at every moment, this Nation and its military forces.

Indeed, this trip seems to violate the Defense Department's own political activity rules which expressly prohibit Senate-confirmed officials from taking an active part in political campaigns. The Department rules are explicit. Even making speeches or knocking doors constitutes a prohibited political act for someone in Hegseth's position.

Pete Hegseth arrived in Kentucky as the civilian leader of the most powerful military on Earth, in the middle of an active war. The ``Secretary'' title travels with him. He can't leave it at the office. The authority of the office travels with him. And every servicemember watching the news understood exactly what they were seeing: the man who controls their careers, their promotions, and their deployments inserting himself into a partisan election on behalf of the President's favorite candidate.

This was an abuse of office and created an image that every Secretary of Defense, in my memory, has worked to avoid.

The Kentucky party's own former spokesperson questioned whether Secretary Hegseth violated the Hatch Act, and numerous independent groups have filed complaints with the Pentagon's inspector general.

This isn't about my opposition to the Secretary or President Trump. I am driven by the corrosive impacts of his rhetoric, his actions, and what they mean for the strength of our volunteer military. We need to think about what this means for the men and women in uniform who serve under this Secretary. They took an oath to the Constitution--not to a political party, not to a candidate, not to a President. The Uniform Code of Military Justice restricts their partisan activity precisely because we have always understood that a politicized military is a dangerous military. And now our servicemembers are watching their Secretary of Defense do what they are forbidden to do.

What message does that send? What chilling effect does it have on good order and discipline throughout the ranks?

Secretary Hegseth has personally intervened in the careers of nearly 50 senior officers that we know of, firing them or blocking their promotions without explanation. Just last month, we learned he had personally blocked and delayed the promotions of dozens of top performing Navy and Air Force officers, the majority of whom are women and minority officers. These are leaders, selected by their peers, based on merit and performance, in a promotion system that has functioned on those principles for generations.

The chilling effect is real. Senior officers across the force are asking themselves whether their professional military advice--the kind that keeps soldiers alive--will cost them their careers.

And this is not hypothetical. We have already seen it happen. General Kruse, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was fired last year after his analysts produced an intelligence report that contradicted the Secretary's public claims about Iran.

The message was received by those advising him, and here we are today, more than 100 days into a war with Iran.

I would also note, that under U.S. law, only the President may remove an officer from a promotion list. Secretary Hegseth has refused to explain why or how he believes he has the authority to terminate or delay these officers' careers.

And, of course, there is the Kid Rock incident. In March, two Army Apache helicopters flew to the Nashville home of Kid Rock--a well-known Trump supporter--and hovered over his pool while he filmed them for social media. This was an obvious violation of military protocol and aviation safety laws, and the Army immediately launched an investigation and suspended the crews. But within hours, Secretary Hegseth intervened. He posted on social media:

No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots.

The Army's chain of command was overruled by a tweet because the man being entertained was a friend of the President.

Secretary Hegseth later doubled down by taking Kid Rock for a ride in an Army Apache helicopter as part of a promotional video.

The Army's aviation safety regulations exist for a reason. The chain of command exists for a reason. It ensures commanders hold each other and their troops accountable, that those who break regulations face consequences, and that military assets are used for legitimate operational needs, not political theater.

When the Secretary of Defense short-circuits good order and discipline to benefit a political ally, he does not just bend the rules; he signals to every officer that accountability is conditional on politics.

These actions are emblematic of the Secretary's broader focus on his own personal agenda. In the past 3 months alone, while our servicemembers have been fighting and dying overseas, he has taken it upon himself to cancel flu vaccine requirements, repeal firearm restrictions on military posts, bar servicemembers from attending certain universities, and upend the Chaplin Corps.

My point is this: Secretary Hegseth is behaving as though his time as Defense Secretary is an opportunity to impose his personal political views on our military men and women. He is wrong. The Office of Secretary of Defense is about leading millions of American servicemembers of every faith, race, and gender with the character and composure they deserve. The military's apolitical mission is not incidental to its strength; it is foundational to its strength.

When the Secretary of Defense uses his office to promote a sectarian vision of his culture war, he does not inspire the force; he divides it.

Taken together, the Secretary's actions are an assault on the norms, traditions, and structures that have kept

the American military the most trusted institution in this country for 250 years.

Good order and discipline is not a slogan. It means that the rules apply to everyone, including the leaders at the top. It means that accountability flows both ways and that promotions are based on merit, not loyalty to a party. And it means that servicemembers of every faith and background are welcomed and respected.

Secretary Hegseth is undermining every one of those tenets. Our servicemembers deserve better, and we have an obligation as a body, this Senate, to say so plainly and to counter this abuse of power.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5514 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I offer amendment No. 5514, which would build and preserve 2.1 million homes nationwide.

The Trump administration wants to give ICE and DHS another blank check--no reforms after the shootings of two Americans, no accountability for frittering away taxpayer money; just more money and no questions.

There are so many better things we can do with this money. One of them is to build affordable housing in every State in the country.

My amendment would take $62 billion that ICE and DHS don't even need and put it toward the production and rehabilitation of 2.1 million units of new housing for American families across this country.

We must do this. Housing affects every State in this Union. We can do something positive because we need more housing for the American people.

I would ask for the yeas and nays and a vote.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.

Vote on Motion

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Julie Leddy after an incredible 29 years of dedicated service as the executive director of the Coventry Housing Authority in Rhode Island.

Julie has been a tireless champion and a respected leader. At the Coventry Housing Authority, she operated nearly 200 public housing units for elderly and disabled Rhode Islanders, oversaw another 260 Housing Choice Vouchers for other low-income individuals and families, and developed and attained an additional 121 affordable units in Coventry alone. Under Julie's leadership, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, designated the Coventry Housing Authority as a ``High Performer,'' a status reserved for Public Housing Authorities that meet stringent physical, financial, and service requirements. ``High Performer'' is exactly the best way to describe Julie.

Julie didn't just master the nuts-and-bolts of public housing work; she implemented innovative ideas that expanded affordable housing opportunities in Rhode Island beyond standard programs. During Julie's tenure as executive director, Coventry Housing Authority became the first housing authority in Rhode Island to successfully implement the Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program, which helps first-time homebuyers use a Federal housing voucher to purchase a home. Julie also found creative ways to expand Rhode Island's affordable housing stock. She worked hard to connect two of Coventry's public housing developments to the municipal sewer system, which freed up land for 34 units of new affordable housing, and she partnered with the Smithfield Housing Authority--a separate Rhode Island public housing authority--to remediate and replace an old brownfield site with a new 42-unit community. This development, Georgiaville Village Green, was one of the first affordable housing developments for families in Smithfield.

Julie's passion for expanding housing opportunities extended beyond her role in Coventry. She served as co-president of the Public Housing Association of Rhode Island, PHARI, where she advised Rhode Island's State and local leaders on how best to protect and expand affordable housing. Indeed, I have long relied on Julie's deep well of housing expertise while crafting policy in the Senate. She was particularly instrumental to my efforts to expand the Family Self-Sufficiency, FSS, program, which helps HUD-assisted households increase savings and become more financially independent. Julie's insights helped shape my Family Self-Sufficiency Act, which became law in 2018 and expanded FSS opportunities to more Americans, as well as my Helping More Families Save Act, which has passed both the House and Senate this Congress.

While Julie's retirement is well deserved, she will be missed. Julie, thank you for decades of hard work for Coventry and Rhode Island. You have left an enduring mark on our State. I wish you and your husband Kevin the very best as you begin your next chapter and enjoy more time with your daughters Paige, Alicia, and Elizabeth, as well as your grandchildren. Congratulations on a well-earned retirement.

Mr. President, we need to revitalize our Nation's defense and maritime industrial bases, and we need to develop the workforce to achieve this goal. Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs have the track record and capacity to support this effort. Yet current law limits the ability of the Department of Defense and key entities in the defense and maritime industrial bases to invest in partnerships with these programs. To address this challenge, I am introducing the bipartisan Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act with Senator Collins. Our bill will formalize and strengthen the partnership between Job Corps, registered apprenticeship programs, and the defense industrial base. I am grateful to Representative Joe Courtney for leading the bipartisan effort in the House.

Over the next decade, the submarine industrial base will need an estimated 100,000 skilled workers to build the submarines critical to our national defense. In the next year, Electric Boat, a key contractor in this effort, plans to hire 5,000 workers in the skilled trades, including 3,000 in Rhode Island. Our Job Corps centers have been important partners in filling the workforce pipeline, but with additional resources and flexibilities, they could do even more.

The Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act would promote greater alignment between our armed services, defense industrial base, Job Corps, and registered apprenticeship programs to prepare young workers to contribute to our national defense. It would extend eligibility for the Navy Shipbuilding Workforce Development Special Incentive to Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs, and it would enable Job Corps centers to receive grants from the Department of Defense and other sources to fund training curriculum. It would also provide Job Corps centers with the flexibility to make staffing and professional development decisions, enter into agreements with local partners, and engage stakeholders, while acting within existing budgets.

Additionally, the Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act would provide new avenues for participation in Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs. Our

bill would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure military recruits who are ineligible for enlistment be made aware of opportunities to enroll in the Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs to prepare them for enlistment or learn skills that are in high demand in the defense industrial Use. It would also streamline Job Corps' enrollment for interested servicemembers in preseparation counseling.

The Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act is a win-win-win piece of legislation. Our national security will be strengthened by providing more skilled workers to address critical defense sector needs; young people will get life-changing career opportunities that will put them on a path to economic security and personal success; and the taxpayer will benefit from greater government efficiency in leveraging existing programs to address national priorities. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, we need to revitalize our Nation's defense and maritime industrial bases, and we need to develop the workforce to achieve this goal. Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs have the track record and capacity to support this effort. Yet current law limits the ability of the Department of Defense and key entities in the defense and maritime industrial bases to invest in partnerships with these programs. To address this challenge, I am introducing the bipartisan Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act with Senator Collins. Our bill will formalize and strengthen the partnership between Job Corps, registered apprenticeship programs, and the defense industrial base. I am grateful to Representative Joe Courtney for leading the bipartisan effort in the House.

Over the next decade, the submarine industrial base will need an estimated 100,000 skilled workers to build the submarines critical to our national defense. In the next year, Electric Boat, a key contractor in this effort, plans to hire 5,000 workers in the skilled trades, including 3,000 in Rhode Island. Our Job Corps centers have been important partners in filling the workforce pipeline, but with additional resources and flexibilities, they could do even more.

The Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act would promote greater alignment between our armed services, defense industrial base, Job Corps, and registered apprenticeship programs to prepare young workers to contribute to our national defense. It would extend eligibility for the Navy Shipbuilding Workforce Development Special Incentive to Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs, and it would enable Job Corps centers to receive grants from the Department of Defense and other sources to fund training curriculum. It would also provide Job Corps centers with the flexibility to make staffing and professional development decisions, enter into agreements with local partners, and engage stakeholders, while acting within existing budgets.

Additionally, the Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act would provide new avenues for participation in Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs. Our

bill would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure military recruits who are ineligible for enlistment be made aware of opportunities to enroll in the Job Corps and registered apprenticeship programs to prepare them for enlistment or learn skills that are in high demand in the defense industrial Use. It would also streamline Job Corps' enrollment for interested servicemembers in preseparation counseling.

The Job Corps Shipbuilding-Defense Industrial Base Pipeline Act is a win-win-win piece of legislation. Our national security will be strengthened by providing more skilled workers to address critical defense sector needs; young people will get life-changing career opportunities that will put them on a path to economic security and personal success; and the taxpayer will benefit from greater government efficiency in leveraging existing programs to address national priorities. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I move proceed to Calendar No. 388, S.J. Res. 132.

Madam President, it is not enough that President Trump has injected chaos and inflation into the economy with his illegal tariffs, unauthorized war, and his so-called Big Beautiful Bill. He is also stripping protections for average Americans against being defrauded and scammed out of their money.

Case in point, through Russell Vought, who is moonlighting as the Director of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the CFPB, Trump is dismantling the Military Lending Act or MLA. He has fired the CFPB staff responsible for enforcing this law, dismissing active cases against lenders for defrauding and scamming the troops, and refusing to supervise financial companies to make sure they comply with the Military Lending Act.

Back in 2006, the Senate passed the Military Lending Act by unanimous consent. I strongly support this law because as a former military officer, I have seen how servicemembers have had their lives and careers ruined by predatory lending.

And in 2010, the Senate strengthened this law again in a bipartisan fashion--completely bipartisan--by giving the CFPB powerful supervision and enforcement authority.

Since then, the CFPB has returned $360 million to servicemembers and veterans. They have won major cases for violations of the MLA, and as result, corrected the behavior of many predatory lenders.

But Mr. Vought is unilaterally defanging this Agency--taking it apart. Besides removing staff, he has issued guidance stripping the Agency of its authority to supervise nonbank lenders for compliance with the MLA.

Who are these nonbank lenders? These are the payday lenders who set up shop outside military bases and target young servicemembers with loans

that leave them with huge debts and exorbitant interest payments that can be in some cases in the triple digits.

Mr. Vought wants to give these lenders free rein to go after servicemembers to take away their well-earned compensation, and in many cases--I have seen it personally--to put them in a financial spiral that pushes them out of the service and into a very, very difficult and challenging life.

Today, this Senate can go on record, as it has in the past, in a very strong bipartisan vote to rescind Mr. Vought's guidance and protect our servicemembers.

Now, every one of us goes back home and gets with the veterans groups and says: We owe you more than we can pay you. We respect what you have done.

And those servicemen who are serving today in the Persian Gulf, they have to get the support they need, and frankly, they don't get it.

It is an easy choice: the troops or Russell Vought's attempt to suppress these troops who are serving us.

And I would urge passage of this proposal.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Kevin Warsh to be the Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system.

I want to put this nomination in some context. Donald Trump's chaos is not working for the average American. Housing is more expensive; healthcare is more expensive; groceries are more expensive; American manufactures' inputs are more expensive; and gas is more expensive due primarily to the President's unwise and unauthorized war with Iran.

That is quite a list of higher prices and economic chaos, and it is no secret President Trump also thinks he should control the actions of the Federal Reserve. He has tried to fire some of its members, threatened others, and even launched a criminal investigation meant to force out Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

The Federal Reserve is tasked with combating inflation and helping maximize employment. This dual mandate helps companies succeed and Americans find work and support their families.

The American people need and deserve a Fed Chair who is committed to this task--whose sole motivation is meeting the Fed's dual mandate and who is dedicated to the Federal Reserve's independence.

But after attempting to oust one Fed Governor, as well as the current Chair, President Trump appears to have found an individual who will operate according to his wishes, not the Fed's dual mandate.

And I am not simply speculating. President Trump explicitly told America he would pick a Fed Chair committed to his preferred monetary policy--``someone who believes in lower interest rates by a lot''--and publicly confirmed Mr. Warsh fit that bill.

The President has made clear he believes the Fed should shed its independence, arguing, ``I'm a smart voice and should be listened to.'' And Mr. Warsh himself testified the Fed should not be fully independent.

Undermining Fed independence is extremely dangerous. The last time a President exerted control over the Fed was President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. The Fed artificially kept rates low--exactly what President Trump wants today--which helped cause, in the case of Nixon, massive stagflation.

Now, President Trump wants total control of the economy by installing his pick to lead the Fed. And based on the President's track record, we should all be very, very wary. Since President Trump returned to the White House 16 months ago, the United States has added only 420,000 new jobs, and that is a huge drop from the 1.5 million jobs the United States added during President Biden's final 12 months in office.

Similarly, workers' real wages grew at a slower pace last year than in 2024, while GDP growth significantly slowed from 2.8 percent to 2.1 percent. Indeed, a greater share of Americans are unemployed now than when President Biden left office.

Zoom out. How did we get here? It becomes clear. The President's tariffs walloped Americans to the tune of $1,000 in new costs per family last year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

Gas prices are up 50 percent since the President began his war on Iran, with diesel prices $2 higher and home heating oil prices also jumping up significantly.

Researchers at Brown University estimate Americans have spent an extra $38 billion on gas and diesel since the war began--that is $290 per household in a little over 2 months. The President's war with Iran pushed inflation to a 3-year high in April with prices for gas, food, clothing, and housing increasing significantly.

Making matters worse, President Trump cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid last year. As a result, insurance prices and costs are increasing so that roughly 15 million Americans will lose their healthcare insurance over the next decade.

About 1.5 million people have already dropped their Affordable Care Act coverage as a result of the President's cuts. In my home State of Rhode Island, 10,000 people lost their health insurance. The President has created huge new costs for families, and households are stretched thin. Unsurprisingly, credit card balances hit a record $1.3 trillion at the end of last year. People are living month to month on their credit cards, and that is not a hopeful sign for working Americans.

But with the President's help, one set of Americans did exceptionally well in 2025: the ultrarich. Investment bank UBS reports that the number of U.S. billionaires jumped 11 percent last year with their combined wealth reaching $6.9 trillion dollars. That is trillion with a