Floor Statements

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, today I am introducing the Expanding Access to EAT Local Foods Act with Senators Brown, Booker, Wyden, Butler, Whitehouse, King, Blumenthal, Smith, Shaheen, Warren, Fetterman, and Welch. This bill would create a permanent grant program for State and Tribal governments to procure local foods for distribution to nearby hunger relief programs.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted national supply chains and highlighted the importance of resilient, local food systems. In response, the U.S. Department of Agriculture created the Local Food Purchase Cooperative Agreement, LFPA, Program, using nearly $900 million in one-time funds. Through LFPA, USDA has awarded grants to State and Tribal governments to buy local foods for distribution to nearby feeding programs. LFPA provides as access to food for those in need, creates economic opportunity for local and underserved producers, farmers, and fishermen, and strengthens our food supply chains.

This program is making a positive impact in communities across the country. In my home State of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management has worked with the nonprofit Farm Fresh Rhode Island to purchase food from 95 local producers, distributing that nutritious, local food to over 65,000 Rhode Islanders.

However, unless codified in law, this program will end when the one- time LFPA dollars are fully expended. And without sustained investment, we will lose the resilient local food systems that the LFPA program has been able to create.

The EAT Local Foods Act prevents us from losing ground by creating a permanent program for States and Tribes to purchase food from producers within their State's geographic bounds or within 400 miles of the final delivery destination for distribution through the hunger relief system.

This is a win-win-win. First, the bill supports local economic development by providing local producers with access to the hunger relief market. By establishing a new, reliable stream of orders for small, beginning, and underserved farmers, ranchers, and fishers, the bill will give these businesses the financial security to invest and further expand. Second, the bill would strengthen our domestic agriculture supply chain. By investing in local food distribution, the bill would help build local businesses that support durable and resilient local food systems. Third, the EAT Local Foods Act would help combat food insecurity by providing fresh, nutritious, local food to underserved communities, feeding more families and helping ease the strain on the hunger relief system.

I am pleased that the bill is supported by farmers, food hubs, coalitions, and business networks from across the country, including the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the National Center for Frontier Communities, and the Wallace Center at Winrock International. In Rhode Island, the bill is supported by the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, Farm Fresh Rhode Island, the Commercial Fisheries Center of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Food Policy Council, and Southside Community Land Trust. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and in working to include it in the farm bill.

Madam President, today I am introducing the Expanding Access to EAT Local Foods Act with Senators Brown, Booker, Wyden, Butler, Whitehouse, King, Blumenthal, Smith, Shaheen, Warren, Fetterman, and Welch. This bill would create a permanent grant program for State and Tribal governments to procure local foods for distribution to nearby hunger relief programs.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted national supply chains and highlighted the importance of resilient, local food systems. In response, the U.S. Department of Agriculture created the Local Food Purchase Cooperative Agreement, LFPA, Program, using nearly $900 million in one-time funds. Through LFPA, USDA has awarded grants to State and Tribal governments to buy local foods for distribution to nearby feeding programs. LFPA provides as access to food for those in need, creates economic opportunity for local and underserved producers, farmers, and fishermen, and strengthens our food supply chains.

This program is making a positive impact in communities across the country. In my home State of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management has worked with the nonprofit Farm Fresh Rhode Island to purchase food from 95 local producers, distributing that nutritious, local food to over 65,000 Rhode Islanders.

However, unless codified in law, this program will end when the one- time LFPA dollars are fully expended. And without sustained investment, we will lose the resilient local food systems that the LFPA program has been able to create.

The EAT Local Foods Act prevents us from losing ground by creating a permanent program for States and Tribes to purchase food from producers within their State's geographic bounds or within 400 miles of the final delivery destination for distribution through the hunger relief system.

This is a win-win-win. First, the bill supports local economic development by providing local producers with access to the hunger relief market. By establishing a new, reliable stream of orders for small, beginning, and underserved farmers, ranchers, and fishers, the bill will give these businesses the financial security to invest and further expand. Second, the bill would strengthen our domestic agriculture supply chain. By investing in local food distribution, the bill would help build local businesses that support durable and resilient local food systems. Third, the EAT Local Foods Act would help combat food insecurity by providing fresh, nutritious, local food to underserved communities, feeding more families and helping ease the strain on the hunger relief system.

I am pleased that the bill is supported by farmers, food hubs, coalitions, and business networks from across the country, including the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the National Center for Frontier Communities, and the Wallace Center at Winrock International. In Rhode Island, the bill is supported by the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, Farm Fresh Rhode Island, the Commercial Fisheries Center of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Food Policy Council, and Southside Community Land Trust. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and in working to include it in the farm bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the situation in the Middle East and the war between Israel and Hamas.

Five months ago, Hamas brutally attacked Israel, killing more than 1,200 people and taking 240 hostages. Hamas militants terrorized the Israeli people, committed unspeakable acts of torture and mutilation against innocent men, women, and children. This tragedy was the single deadliest day in Israel's 75-year history and the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

In the wake of these horrific attacks, the United States has stood by its democratic friend and ally Israel, as it has since the very beginning when Harry Truman stood up as the first world leader to recognize the State of Israel.

I personally traveled with a bipartisan group of my colleagues 2 weeks after the attacks to mourn with the people of Israel and support the defense of Israel, to ensure that they knew the United States was with them.

In my meetings in Israel and with Jewish leaders from Rhode Island, it is clear to me that this attack has had a profound impact on Israelis and Jewish people everywhere. This attack has touched the deepest nerve, reopened the wounds of the past, and left many wondering not how but if Jews will ever be safe from persecution because of who they are.

As I have continued to make clear, Israel can and must defend itself against the military threat from Hamas. Any nation that is attacked in this manner has the inherent right to self-defense.

The United States will continue to support Israel as it works to degrade and defeat Hamas, but I must also say I have deep reservations about how this war is being conducted. I believe good allies, good friends stand together; and we stand with Israel. But great allies, great friends are willing to speak hard truths and hold each other to the highest standards, especially around the conduct of war and issues of national security.

I want to echo the majority leader, the senior Senator from New York--a truly devoted pro-Israel champion who is spiritually and emotionally connected to Israel unlike very few of us, if any, in this Chamber, who has been a friend to Israeli leaders across the political spectrum, and who is unafraid to speak truth to power.

It is clear to me, now 5 months into this war, that Israel's strategy to defeat Hamas is in peril. While the IDF has made important progress in rooting out Hamas in Gaza, I do not see a clear endgame or metrics for success coming from this Israeli Government. There is no plan for the day after the fighting stops.

We know that more than 30,000 Gazans are dead. The millions of Gazans who have survived have largely been forced to flee south toward Rafah and the crossing there with Egypt. They have little access to food, water, shelter, or medical care. Those remaining in the north are facing dire humanitarian conditions. More than 2 million Gazans are at risk of starvation or famine. Enormous portions of the Gaza Strip have been completely destroyed and left uninhabitable, and the West Bank is teetering on the brink of chaos.

There are regular exchanges of fire in the north with Hezbollah, who are ensconced in Lebanon. This has forced nearly 100,000 Israelis to move from their homes to escape these attacks emanating from Lebanon. Lebanese noncombatants are caught in the crossfire between IDF forces and Hezbollah. The region stands at the precipice of being engulfed in an all-out war.

Today, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. Senate, as a friend and longtime supporter of the Israeli people, it is my duty to say clearly that this war has veered off course. There must be a fundamental course correction for the national security interests of Israel, America, and our allies and partners throughout the world.

I do not come to this conclusion lightly. There are two factors that we must understand and come to terms with. First, Israel should learn from the United States' hard-earned strategic and tactical lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. And, second, as Leader Schumer courageously argued here on the Senate floor last week, Israel and its allies must acknowledge that Prime Minister Netanyahu's failed policies and desperate pursuit of power created much of the tragic situation we are witnessing today.

There are actual steps Israel can take to address these issues. We should start by recognizing lessons from America's war in Iraq. We, too, suffered a national tragedy on September 11, 2001, and immediately sought to defend ourselves. We launched our campaign to degrade and defeat al-Qaida and Afghanistan, and the result of that war showed early military success. But the anguish of 9/11 affected our ability to make clear strategic decisions; and we, despite my opposition, mistakenly invaded another country, Iraq, which had no role in the attacks on that horrific day of September 11. National grief and political fury can cloud the thinking of even the shrewdest military tacticians.

I worry that the mistakes of America's war in Iraq are being made again by Israel in Gaza.

Similar to the power vacuum that the United States created when it dismantled Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq, Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 contributed to the extremist violence we see today. The rise of Hamas, a terrorist group whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel and the Israeli people, assumed control of the Gaza Strip. But instead of using that opportunity to build lifelines for the people of Gaza, Hamas built a 500-mile tunnel network to terrorize Israel. Instead of providing education, healthcare, and basic services for Palestinians, Hamas stockpiled and unleashed thousands of rockets against Israel through the course of the years.

Now, in the wake of October 7, Israel's stated goal is to destroy a terror group capable of guerrilla-style warfare in a large urban territory with the aid of a massive underground tunnel system. This mission would be daunting for even the most highly trained and advanced militaries.

As it pursues this goal, Israel should consider lessons from the United States' tactical experiences in Iraq. In particular, the battle of Fallujah in 2004 provides a painful case study in counterinsurgency warfare in an urban environment. After a violent, grinding fight through that city, the United States significantly failed to achieve the objectives of clearing the territory from insurgents. As the Modern War Institute at West Point assessed:

Senior political leaders should not react emotionally in

war and direct immediate action against a densely populated

urban area when conditions for success are not present.

In contrast, operations in Gaza may be more successful by following the model of the battle of Mosul in 2016 and 2017, where the United States worked with coalition forces in Iraq to wrest Iraq's third largest city back from ISIS militants. And I had the opportunity to visit, on the ground, our forces leading a coalition of Iraq forces against ISIS.

The operation was conducted with patience and precision, and ISIS was successfully eliminated in Mosul. Even then, success was arduous and costly. As the Financial Times characterized it:

The mission to clear the city of jihadi militants was

ultimately successful. But the fighting was intense, took

three times longer than planned, left 10,000 civilians dead,

and killed more coalition soldiers than expected.

In prosecuting its current war, Israel must do a better job of following the

lessons of successful counterterrorism campaigns. At times, Israeli forces have conducted heavy bombing campaigns using weapons with large payloads, rather than more targeted operations that yield more successful, albeit slower, results.

The IDF's willingness to bomb heavily populated areas to pursue Hamas leaders has changed both the perceptions and realities of this war. Protecting the civilian population is a strategic imperative in counterterrorism operations and the law of war. You want to separate the insurgents from the population and gain the trust of the population to continue to successfully conduct your operation against an increasingly isolated terrorist group. But, simply put, Israel's current strategy risks creating more terrorists than it is eliminating. Can you think of a 15-year-old who has lost his youngest sibling, his mother, his father, his grandparents? Where will his rage and fury and profound sadness be directed? That is a question I think we should all contemplate.

The second issue we have to understand is the broken, polarized political environment that badly weakened Israel's national security before October 7. Prime Minister Netanyahu returned to power in 2022, facing charges of corruption and a criminal trial. His narrow political coalition is the most far right, conservative government in Israeli history. He has continued to make clear that he will never support a two-state solution.

In a desperate attempt to stay in power, Netanyahu has emboldened the most far right members of his coalition. He has not only allowed extreme positions to be the stated goal of his administration, he has provided far right members of his coalition with ministries by which they can enact their agendas. His Minister of Finance, Smotrich, has fought his entire career to expand settler control in the West Bank and now has control over restarting payments to the Palestinian Authority. His Minister of National Security, Ben-Gvir, has been convicted on at least eight charges, including supporting a terrorist organization and incitement to racism.

In facing his own criminal charges, Netanyahu worked to significantly weaken the Israeli judicial system for his own benefit. He did this despite hundreds of thousands of Israelis protesting in the streets. And we were there when those protests were going on last February. And he did this over the objection of his Israeli military reservists, who, at that point, said they would refuse to report to duty in protest. And he did this despite warnings from Defense Minister Gallant that the IDF would be weakened as a result.

Adding to this toxic and destabilizing mix was Netanyahu's strategy for dealing with Hamas. For years, he purposely propped up Hamas as a means to ensure that his two-state solution would never come to fruition. As far back as 2012, Netanyahu told Israeli press that ``it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.'' It was not just a counterweight. He knew that having Hamas in power in Gaza meant that a two-state solution would never be possible. This strategy to prop up Hamas also included allowing Hamas to receive suitcases full of cash coming from Qatar and other places. A former Defense Minister for Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, blamed this tactic as one that directly paved the way for the October 7 attacks.

Netanyahu's long, relentless pursuit of political survival and power are now fueling his strategy for war in Gaza--and it strikes me that it is his strategy, not Israel's direction; his future, not Israel's future that is the foremost factor at play.

These factors add up to several hard truths that must be spoken from one ally to another, just as Leader Schumer did last week, with courage and principle.

Most importantly, Israel can't use military force alone to reclaim peace and security for its people. Military force is used as a means to a political end. Military force itself will never provide the final answer.

A political solution will take hard bargaining and diplomatic negotiations. Working with the United States, Qatar, Egypt, and other allies and partners, the Israelis must reach a temporary cease-fire that allows for the safe return of hostages, expansion of humanitarian assistance, and capacity to safely deliver assistance to the people of Gaza. The ongoing airdrop campaign and seaport efforts are a step in the right direction, but Israel must do more to ensure that the increase supply of food and other desperately needed supplies can reach the people of Gaza.

There must be a realistic plan for day-after operations in Gaza. There needs to be a return to a framework for a two-state solution, where the State of Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian State exists side by side in peace and security. This plan will require buy-in from all--Israel, the Palestinian people, the world community, Arab neighbors. Israel should not and will not find the long-term security and peace it wants by indefinitely reoccupying the Gaza Strip.

Finally, while it is a decision that will ultimately be made by the Israeli and Palestinian people, like Leader Schumer, I believe it is time for new leadership for both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Palestinian President Abbas is almost 20 years into what was supposed to be a 4-year Presidential term, and finding a successor for the Palestinian Authority is long overdue. A new Palestinian leader must recognize that the only path to peace, security, and prosperity is to renounce terror, to work with Israel, to work with regional partners for a path to statehood which is stable and peaceful.

New leadership, as I indicated, also includes Prime Minister Netanyahu. Polling indicates that more than 75 percent of Israelis believes he should step down, and I agree with Leader Schumer that Netanyahu represents an obstacle to long-term peace in Israel.

I have long been a friend and supporter of Israel's. I traveled there in the early nineties and have traveled there periodically since. More importantly, the United States has been Israel's closest ally for 75 years.

In 1948, when the Israelis declared their independence, the world was not particularly accepting except here in the United States, where, to his immense credit, President Harry Truman stood up and said that we will recognize and support the State of Israel. That profound bond exists today and, in my view and in my hope, will always exist. We can't have anyone break that bond.

Great allies must hold each other to high standards, share hard truths when needed, and the U.S.-Israeli alliance is no different. So I urge Israel to change course in Gaza immediately, to work with all of us to establish ultimately and enduringly, we hope, a secure and peaceful Israel and the protection of its people, as well as a just, secure, and safe place where all people of that region can live safely.

I yield the floor.

Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Melissa R. DuBose to be a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

Let me thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for advancing her nomination on a bipartisan vote last week. I would like to particularly thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership, not just here, but so many times on the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate.

Like Senator Whitehouse, I look forward, in a few minutes, to her confirmation as a district judge. Judge DuBose served with distinction at the State level as an associate judge in the Rhode Island district court. She has proven to be an exceptional jurist with a sterling track record. As a judge, she is known for ensuring proceedings in her courtroom are fair and efficient. She is someone who not only knows the law but understands that her task as a judge is to seek justice.

She will fill the seat being vacated by Judge William E. Smith, who will be taking senior status. Judge Smith is a model of professionalism and integrity. He, along with Rhode Island's other current sitting judges on the Federal district court, as Senator Whitehouse noted, are enthusiastic about the nomination of Judge DuBose.

Indeed, they wrote:

Melissa is an outstanding choice to join the federal

bench--she is supremely qualified, her ethics are impeccable,

and her temperament is judicious.

That is high praise indeed from a diverse and exceptional group of judges. I share their confidence in Judge DuBose.

She will continue Rhode Island's long and proud tradition of outstanding district court judges, and she will make history in her own right, becoming the first woman of color and the first openly LGBTQ person to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

Judge DuBose was born and raised in Providence, not far from where the U.S. district court is located. She earned both her undergraduate degree and teaching certificate from Providence College. Providence College is a remarkable school. The Dominicans run a tight ship, and they ensure that their students are particularly well prepared.

She worked for 11 years, as Senator Whitehouse said, as a schoolteacher in the Providence Public School system, shaping and inspiring young minds. I can't think of better preparation for presiding over a court than running a classroom in a city like Providence or any other big city. So she has skills that are necessary for being a judge, both temperamentally and intellectually.

Her desire to make her community safer, to give back, to give the young people whom she taught a better chance, inspired her to study law. So, while teaching full time, she attended Roger Williams University School of Law at night and got her J.D. Upon graduation, she worked for the State of Rhode Island, in the attorney general's office. She started in the juvenile division and rose through the ranks and took on new assignments, including criminal arraignments and violation hearings.

After serving in the public sector for several years, she worked as a corporate counsel for Schneider Electric, a Fortune Global 500 company, covering compliance, ethics, and trade.

This is a remarkable woman who taught in a city school, who served in the State attorney general's office, and then went to an international company to deal with issues that are much different than you find in a district court or a school. So her capacity, her breadth of knowledge and experience, and her whole life prepared her so well for this judgeship.

In 2019, then-Governor Gina Raimondo, now our Commerce Secretary, elevated her to the Rhode Island district court. And she demonstrated fairness and impartiality and a sense of fairness in court.

Having served as an attorney and a judge, in the attorney general's office and in the private sector, she has handled both criminal and civil cases in Rhode Island's courts and trade cases that span continents. She is more than ready for elevation to the Federal bench.

Now, her resume is impressive, and she has received support all across the board, from judges in Rhode Island, from public defenders, from prosecutors, and from State and local law enforcement officials. Like her peers, I am confident that Judge DuBose will serve on the district court with integrity and distinction. She has dedicated her life to public service, and Rhode Island is fortunate that she has once again answered the call to serve.

I urge my colleagues to confirm this exceptionally qualified nominee to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I am introducing 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 addditional earnings into their escrow account instead of paying higher rent, as is typically required under federally subsidized housing programs. Upon graduation from the FSS 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. Indeed, in 2021 27 percent of FSS graduates no longer needed Federal rental assistance within 1 year of leaving FSS, while 11 percent of graduates were ultimately able to purchase their own home, FSS graduates with

escrow savings, on average, had approximately $9,495 in their account upon leaving the program--a substantial sum for low-income families.

Despite the program's success and broad eligibility, program participation was effectively capped at about 70,000 enrollees in 2023 because there is simply not enough Federal funding for the required FSS corordinators.

The Helping More Families Save Act would help more Americans access the program by creating a anew universal escrow pilot. Under the bill, public housing agencies, PHAs, and PBRA property owners could offer a limited number of 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. Although PHAs and PBRA property owners would not be required to offer Coordinator services to these participants, we expect many will work to offer appropriate 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 wise decisions.

If successful, the pilot program could help more low-income families improve their financial security, achieve economic independence, and even purchase their own homes, all with minimal cost to the Federal Government.

This is a commonsense, bipartisan proposal that has the potential to help lift more American families 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.

Madam President, today I am introducing the Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act with Senator Lummis. This legislation would strengthen the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, title I loan program to both help more families find and own an affordable home and better preserve our existing housing stock.

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 provided low-cost loans that help more families afford a manufactured home or make necessary improvements to their existing home, while expanding and preserving critical portions of housing supply. 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 out of our housing stock.

These loans should be a central tool helping to close our nationwide housing shortage, which Freddie Mac estimates at 3.8 million homes. However, outdated loan limits and statutory restrictions have weakened title I's effectiveness and turned the program from success to 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 3 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. 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 loan 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 accesible dwelling units, ADUs, which are small housing units added to a single-family property often for use by a family member, eligible for title I financing. In other words, our bill will make the revamped title I 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 join Senator Lummis and myself, cosponsor this bill, and support its passage.

Madam President, today I am introducing 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 addditional earnings into their escrow account instead of paying higher rent, as is typically required under federally subsidized housing programs. Upon graduation from the FSS 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. Indeed, in 2021 27 percent of FSS graduates no longer needed Federal rental assistance within 1 year of leaving FSS, while 11 percent of graduates were ultimately able to purchase their own home, FSS graduates with

escrow savings, on average, had approximately $9,495 in their account upon leaving the program--a substantial sum for low-income families.

Despite the program's success and broad eligibility, program participation was effectively capped at about 70,000 enrollees in 2023 because there is simply not enough Federal funding for the required FSS corordinators.

The Helping More Families Save Act would help more Americans access the program by creating a anew universal escrow pilot. Under the bill, public housing agencies, PHAs, and PBRA property owners could offer a limited number of 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. Although PHAs and PBRA property owners would not be required to offer Coordinator services to these participants, we expect many will work to offer appropriate 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 wise decisions.

If successful, the pilot program could help more low-income families improve their financial security, achieve economic independence, and even purchase their own homes, all with minimal cost to the Federal Government.

This is a commonsense, bipartisan proposal that has the potential to help lift more American families 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.

Madam President, today I am introducing the Property Improvement and Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act with Senator Lummis. This legislation would strengthen the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, title I loan program to both help more families find and own an affordable home and better preserve our existing housing stock.

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 provided low-cost loans that help more families afford a manufactured home or make necessary improvements to their existing home, while expanding and preserving critical portions of housing supply. 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 out of our housing stock.

These loans should be a central tool helping to close our nationwide housing shortage, which Freddie Mac estimates at 3.8 million homes. However, outdated loan limits and statutory restrictions have weakened title I's effectiveness and turned the program from success to 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 3 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. 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 loan 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 accesible dwelling units, ADUs, which are small housing units added to a single-family property often for use by a family member, eligible for title I financing. In other words, our bill will make the revamped title I 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 join Senator Lummis and myself, cosponsor this bill, and support its passage.

Mr. President, I rise in support of tonight's vote to move forward the nomination of Mr. Ronald Keohane to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

I need not remind my colleagues, with the instability throughout the world right now, how critical it is to ensure that strong civilian leadership is in place across the Department and the military services.

As the Commissioner of the National Defense Strategy concluded, ``The implementation of the National Defense Strategy must feature empowered civilians fulfilling their statutory responsibilities, particularly regarding issues of forced management. Strong civilian oversight is the central hallmark of U.S. civil-military relations, codified in the Constitution and embraced throughout the Nation's history.''

Mr. Keohane was reported out of the committee not once but twice--the first time on March 23, 2023, and then again this conference on February 8, 2024. Both times, he was reported out by voice vote with no one asking to be recorded as a no. To my knowledge, no one has raised any objections to his qualifications. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs is the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness on all matters related to civilian and military personnel policies, reserve integration, military community and family policy, and total force planning and requirements. Additionally, the Assistant Secretary exercises day-to-day supervision of the Department of Defense Education Activity and the Defense Commissary Agency, and provides oversight of the Armed Forces Retirement Homes.

Confirming Mr. Keohane is critical. The military's greatest asset is its people, and filling this void will help the Department navigate the myriad challenges associated with managing the total force--military and civil workforces--to field the most lethal military in the world, especially considering unprecedented recruiting challenges at the moment.

Mr. Keohane is being held not by reason of his qualifications, which are extensive, but because of the position for which he has been nominated has oversight of some matters that a few of my Republican colleagues find objectionable.

Mr. Keohane has previously served in the Department of Defense and other Federal Agencies, making him eminently qualified for this position. Notably, he previously served as the Department Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy in the Obama administration, where he was awarded the Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes to move this well-qualified individual with extensive experience--to move this nomination forward so we can do more to assist our men and women in the field by providing the kind of policy and direction that an experienced and already recognized talented individual can lend to the Department of Defense.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, first, let me commend my colleague from Arizona, Senator Sinema, for her great and tireless efforts to develop a bipartisan immigration reform package that, as she indicated, we could have placed on the floor with our vote yesterday so that we could now be talking about modifications, changes, and improvements to not just the immigration section but also to the other sections. But my Republican colleagues in large numbers said no, and I think that was a grave mistake. If, in fact, we are facing a crisis on the border, voting against legislation to correct this crisis seems to me to be very difficult to justify.

But it is good news that finally, on a bipartisan basis, the national security legislation is on the Senate floor for debate. It is a start, but it shouldn't have taken this long simply to get to the starting line. The delays and continued efforts to slow-walk the process by some can have serious and negative repercussions on our national security.

It has been nearly 6 months since President Biden initiated this request--so long ago that the request was addressed to the former Speaker of the House, not the present Speaker of the House.

I can recall last October, as we were talking about aid to Ukraine, as we were talking about aid to Israel, that my Republican colleagues-- many of them--stood up and said: Fine, but we have got to do something about the border. So, for months, we have been engaged in the process.

Again, I have great regard for Senator Lankford, for his efforts, and for Senator Murphy of Connecticut and Senator Sinema for what they have done. They brought together a truly bipartisan piece of legislation. Senator Lankford is one of those most principled, conservative voices here in the Senate. My colleague from Connecticut has a very strong liberal stance, I would say, as myself. But they came together. Rather than being welcomed as a contribution to debate and progress in national security and border security, Senator Lankford has been demeaned by his own party, condemned by his State committee, and accused of or threatened by commentators that he would be destroyed because he had the temerity to try to develop a compromise on an issue of national security and national importance.

So we have come in the last 6 months through a very circuitous and strange path to reach the point at which we are now, but at least we have a chance to aid and assist people who are fighting desperately not only for their freedom but for democracy all over the globe.

For the last 6 months, the Ukrainian people have been keeping up their fight against Putin's brutal invasion with tremendous bravery and skill and with dwindling resources. Today, they are battling through another difficult winter, trying to withstand indiscriminate Russian attacks against their civilian population and infrastructure.

We, of course, I believe, have a moral obligation to assist Ukraine in this fight. But it isn't just charity; it is in our national security interest to do so. We know that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he won't stop. He will seek to destabilize other countries in the region, including our NATO allies. He will continue to sabotage the international economy and threaten our interests.

This supplemental funding bill would provide $60 billion to help Ukraine with the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to repel Russia. In bringing up Ukraine's military strength, we will also be building up our own capacity. Indeed, the vast majority of the funding in the bill would go directly back into the U.S. industrial base.

Over the last 2 years, we have had an extensive debate about Ukraine in this body. It is ironic to recall that until recently, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been highly critical of the United States for taking too long to provide assistance and for not sending the ``right stuff'' to help fight off Putin.

Now they have a chance to deliver the equipment--American-made equipment--and support Ukraine's needs, while also strengthening America's industrial base and American workers.

We need this bill to move now, and we need the House to act on it.

Make no mistake, denying aid to Ukraine has been and continues to be a gift to Vladimir Putin. But Putin is not the only one who benefits. China is studying how America and the democratic nations of the world respond to Ukraine.

As President Xi considers Taiwan, he is scrutinizing Putin's playbook and the international response. He is measuring and judging if, when push comes to shove, the United States can just be waited out, can just be seen as faltering because they don't have the commitment to democracy and the modern international order forged after World War II.

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea--they would relish seeing American support for Ukraine buckle, and they would relish seeing this supplemental fall.

In contrast, passing this supplemental would send a powerful message to our allies. The bill includes nearly $5 billion in security assistance for Taiwan and our partners in the Indo-Pacific. Similarly, the bill includes $14 billion in security assistance for Israel--our strongest ally in the Middle East--in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack by Hamas.

In addition, the bill includes $10 billion for the State Department and

USAID to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza, Ukraine, and other crises around the world.

Again, the bill would dedicate nearly $35 billion for replenishing U.S. weapons and strengthening our defense industrial base.

It also includes Senator Tim Scott's and Senator Sherrod Brown's bipartisan FEND Off Fentanyl Act. My colleague from South Carolina was talking about the crisis at the border. One aspect of that is the movement of precursors of fentanyl across that border. This legislation would help interdict the movement of drugs and supplies, and it would be a significant attempt to adjust issues emanating from the border. That would be--or it would appear to be ignored by my colleagues.

I believe that Democrats and some very courageous Republicans have gone the extra mile to put together legislation--the previous legislation, particularly, that incorporates improvements to our border security and this legislation, which addresses one aspect of the border, fentanyl, but quite critically addresses the issue of how we maintain the fight in Ukraine.

I hope our Republican colleagues can stand with us and get this bill through. This is a historic moment. What is at stake is the survival of the international order based on law, based on mutual security with organizations like NATO, maintained over the years by the courage of millions of American men and women but forged in the fires of World War II and in the post-war years.

What is emerging to undercut that great international order is a new autocratic system of oligarchs and demagogues who measure progress in their own personal power and personal wealth, not in peace and prosperity for all of their citizens and the citizens of the world.

This is not a routine measure, check the box. This is about the future of our whole world. I hope we can stand up and recognize that we must support this legislation. We must assist Ukraine and Israel. We must provide humanitarian assistance for those who are suffering in Gaza. We must maintain the international order of democratic nations, united by a common interest and committed to peace and prosperity for the world.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I am reintroducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act with Senators Brown, Wyden, Smith, and Merkley. This legislation would reform Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac note sale programs to protect homeowners from foreclosure and keep properties in the hands of families and local civic institutions.

FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac began selling nonperforming and reperforming loans after the great recession to strengthen their balance sheets. These transactions, known as note sales, transfer mortgage ownership to bulk purchasers, including private equity firms and institutional investors. The sale of nonperforming and reperforming loans may reduce financial risk for FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac and help purchasers turn a profit, but they often directly harm homeowners by taking homes from families and moving properties into the single-family rental market.

Loans insured by FHA or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have strong foreclosure protections for borrowers. Companies that service these mortgages must offer specific loss mitigation options to eligible borrowers before they can begin foreclosure proceedings, which helps many borrowers avoid foreclosure and catch up on their payments. But while these foreclosure protections are effective, they are drastically reduced when a mortgage is included in a note sale.

Unfortunately, the lack of robust, required protections after a note sale has very real consequences for homeowners. Over 80 percent of homeowners whose nonperforming loans were sold by FHA ultimately lost their homes after their new servicers reached a final loan resolution, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has found that nonperforming loans sold by FHA are more likely to face foreclosure than comparable loans that FHA keeps on its own balance sheet. The majority of homeowners with nonperforming loans sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also lost their homes after servicers reached a final resolution. It is abundantly clear that note sales do not help most borrowers remain in their homes.

Making matters worse, note sale purchasers are predominately private equity firms and institutional investors, which often move foreclosed properties out of the owner-occupied market. Indeed, approximately one- third of properties foreclosed upon or voluntarily turned over to a lender after a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac nonperforming loan note sale are sold to an investor, held by the purchaser for rental, or become real estate owned. In other words, one-third of these homes may be taken out of the owner-occupied market, reducing home ownership opportunities for families and shifting property ownership to large corporations that often drive up rents.

The Preserving Homes and Communities Act tackles these problems. It would protect homeowners by, one, requiring mortgage servicers complete Agency-required loss mitigation actions before FHA, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac can sell a nonperforming mortgage, and two, by improving loss mitigation protections for these mortgages after purchasers acquire them. It would similarly protect communities by giving local entities with public missions, including States, municipalities, and nonprofits, the first opportunity to purchase nonperforming and reperforming mortgages--ahead of private equity and institutional investors--while requiring purchasers that foreclose on nonperforming note sale properties to prioritize owner-occupants and low- and moderate-income households when selling or renting these homes. In sum, our legislation seeks to keep homeowners in their homes, support home ownership opportunities, and preserve the supply of available and affordable homes for families.

I thank the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, and the National Community Stabilization Trust for their support. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support its passage.

Madam President, today I am reintroducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act with Senators Brown, Wyden, Smith, and Merkley. This legislation would reform Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac note sale programs to protect homeowners from foreclosure and keep properties in the hands of families and local civic institutions.

FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac began selling nonperforming and reperforming loans after the great recession to strengthen their balance sheets. These transactions, known as note sales, transfer mortgage ownership to bulk purchasers, including private equity firms and institutional investors. The sale of nonperforming and reperforming loans may reduce financial risk for FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac and help purchasers turn a profit, but they often directly harm homeowners by taking homes from families and moving properties into the single-family rental market.

Loans insured by FHA or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have strong foreclosure protections for borrowers. Companies that service these mortgages must offer specific loss mitigation options to eligible borrowers before they can begin foreclosure proceedings, which helps many borrowers avoid foreclosure and catch up on their payments. But while these foreclosure protections are effective, they are drastically reduced when a mortgage is included in a note sale.

Unfortunately, the lack of robust, required protections after a note sale has very real consequences for homeowners. Over 80 percent of homeowners whose nonperforming loans were sold by FHA ultimately lost their homes after their new servicers reached a final loan resolution, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has found that nonperforming loans sold by FHA are more likely to face foreclosure than comparable loans that FHA keeps on its own balance sheet. The majority of homeowners with nonperforming loans sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also lost their homes after servicers reached a final resolution. It is abundantly clear that note sales do not help most borrowers remain in their homes.

Making matters worse, note sale purchasers are predominately private equity firms and institutional investors, which often move foreclosed properties out of the owner-occupied market. Indeed, approximately one- third of properties foreclosed upon or voluntarily turned over to a lender after a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac nonperforming loan note sale are sold to an investor, held by the purchaser for rental, or become real estate owned. In other words, one-third of these homes may be taken out of the owner-occupied market, reducing home ownership opportunities for families and shifting property ownership to large corporations that often drive up rents.

The Preserving Homes and Communities Act tackles these problems. It would protect homeowners by, one, requiring mortgage servicers complete Agency-required loss mitigation actions before FHA, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac can sell a nonperforming mortgage, and two, by improving loss mitigation protections for these mortgages after purchasers acquire them. It would similarly protect communities by giving local entities with public missions, including States, municipalities, and nonprofits, the first opportunity to purchase nonperforming and reperforming mortgages--ahead of private equity and institutional investors--while requiring purchasers that foreclose on nonperforming note sale properties to prioritize owner-occupants and low- and moderate-income households when selling or renting these homes. In sum, our legislation seeks to keep homeowners in their homes, support home ownership opportunities, and preserve the supply of available and affordable homes for families.

I thank the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, and the National Community Stabilization Trust for their support. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support its passage.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, today, I am introducing the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act with Senators Smith, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Fetterman, and Baldwin. Our bill would provide up to $50 billion to help build and preserve approximately 3 million units of affordable housing and would be fully paid for through a transfer tax on investors who acquire and hold more than 15 single-family homes.

Driven by a shortage of as many as 6.8 million homes nationwide, home prices have surged 39 percent and rents 31 percent over the last 4 years, according the National Association of Realtors and Zillow. Higher rents and fewer opportunities for home ownership are devastating for millions of families. As housing costs skyrocket, more households are priced out of home ownership, while renters have less to spend on food, clothing, and other everyday necessities.

Low-income Americans are particularly strained. The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that 73 percent of extremely low- income households spend more than half their income on housing. Unsurprisingly, homelessness has risen in line with housing prices and is up 15 percent since 2019.

Unfortunately, Federal investments in low-income housing are insufficient to solve this affordability crisis. Indeed, researchers at Harvard University found that the three largest Federal housing programs serve nearly 300,000 fewer households today than they did 20 years ago, while approximately 25 percent more households are eligible but can't get aid.

At the same time, investors are buying a greater share of single- family homes sold each year--many of which they hold as rentals-- preventing more families from reaching home ownership and often driving up rents. Most households cannot compete with the largest investors, who are typically private equity and other institutional investors. That is because large investors can use their financial might to make all-cash offers, waive, contingencies, and provide other concessions that individual buyers simply cannot match. Through last October, more than one out of every four single-family homes sold in 2023 were bought by investors, not hard-working households--a 69-percent increase from investors' prepandemic share of home purchases.

Our Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act would tackle both our affordable housing crisis and institutional investors who crowd out families in the housing market. It would raise $50 billion by taxing investors who purchase large numbers of single-family homes, with higher tax rates for the largest investors. Revenue would be split between the Housing Trust Fund, HTF, and Capital Magnet Fund, CMF, to help build and rehab over 300,000 rental units for extremely low-income Americans through HTF grants and help finance 2.7 million homes for low-income families via CMF, which leverages private investments.

In other words, our bill would help build and rehabilitate millions of homes for American families and boost households competing to buy homes with deep-pocketed investors, all without raising the deficit. This is a commonsense, fair proposal that tackles perhaps our Nation's biggest challenge.

I thank the bill's endorsers--the National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Housing Law Project, National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients, National Housing Resource Center, Americans for Financial Reform, and Consumer Action--and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.