Floor Statements

Mr. President, 23 years ago this month, President George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. The speed, power, and sophistication of the American military campaign was astounding. Within 3 short weeks, the United States had crushed the Iraqi army and collapsed Saddam Hussein's entire government. Our military victory was swift and total, as expected.

A few months before the invasion, I delivered a speech here on the Senate floor. I spoke about the evil of Saddam's regime, the dangerous threat the Iraqi military posed, and the importance of confronting Iraq through all practical means, but I also cautioned against the pitfalls of the Bush administration's strategy, which I considered to be terribly misguided.

As I observed at the time:

Our judgment cannot rest simply on [Saddam's] unalloyed

evil. We must consider our actions more broadly. Will we

enhance the stability and security of the region? Will we

strengthen our security not just for the moment, but for the

future as well? What kind of precedent will we establish? . .

. We will decisively defeat Iraqi military forces in any

conflict.

Yes.

The skill and courage of our forces, aided by superb

technology, will overwhelm Iraqi

resistance. The military outcome is certain, but the cost and

the consequences are uncertain and could be quite grave.

I take no satisfaction in that warning. I wish Iraq had been the brief, decisive victory the Bush administration promised it would be. The reality turned out to be two decades of destruction, death, and instability that has cost our Nation dearly.

I am standing here today because the Trump administration's war against Iran raises the same concerns and more. The parallels between March 2003 and March 2026 are striking and cannot be wished away no matter how loudly the Trump administration shouts down those of us who have noted as much. In both cases, the United States launched a massive air campaign with thousands of strikes on air defenses, command centers, leadership targets, and weapons infrastructure. In both cases, the early military results were dramatic and impressive. And in both cases, the administration stood before the cameras and promised the American people that the hard part was done.

Indeed, in 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed:

It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt 6 months.

Similarly, just a few days ago, Secretary Hegseth said:

You can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be

eight, it could be three.

There are many other parallels to these two conflicts, but in some cases, the differences between 2003 and 2026 are more alarming as this war begins.

In 2002, President Bush made a case for war. I disagreed with that case profoundly. In fact, I voted against the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq--1 of only 23 Senators to do so. But we had a vote. The Bush administration came to Congress, presented intelligence--however flawed--testified before committees, and sought the buy-in of the American people.

President Bush went through the steps that any responsible Commander in Chief must, and this body deliberated and decided. We had the information needed to cast a vote; every Senator did.

Importantly, I would note that even with all that deliberation in 2002, President Bush still failed catastrophically. He tied our military up in a disaster that took decades and hundreds of thousands of lives to partially unravel.

Today, President Trump has bypassed or ignored this most necessary process in a democracy. The American people woke up last Saturday to find themselves at war with Iran. There was no vote, there was no authorization for the use of military force, nor intelligence shared with Congress--who are the representatives of 350 million Americans-- and no coalition of allies and partners were assembled or brought into the plan. In fact, several of our closest friends in the Middle East were, by all accounts, as surprised as anyone by the joint American and Israeli attack.

Many of them--Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Jordan, Iraq, and others--are suffering the consequences of Iranian retaliation without having been involved in this decision that triggered it. And the administration has left thousands of Americans stranded in harm's way without, for many, a realistic means of getting home.

As impressively as our military has performed, I must ask my Republican colleagues this: Do you believe that the Trump White House has devoted even a fraction of the strategic effort that the Bush administration put into Iraq? Because the Bush administration at least thought about it. They were wrong, but they undertook preparations for more than a year. What is the evidence of that same seriousness with today's military operation?

Now, we must understand Iran is not Iraq. I want to be clear about this because it matters enormously to what comes next.

Saddam Hussein's government, for all its brutality, was a hollowed- out institution propped up by fear and oil. The Iranian regime is something altogether different. It is deeply entrenched by half a century in power. It is woven into the economic, military, and religious fabric of a nation of 93 million people.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--the IRGC--is not a conventional military that will dissolve because the Ayatollah has been killed--just the opposite. It has shown its willingness to absorb pain and endure. It is an ideological institution with deep roots, considerable resources, and a demonstrated willingness to direct violence across the entire region.

Iran's missile and drone arsenal dwarfs anything Iraq possessed, and it has a vast network of proxy forces, from Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, to the Houthis in Yemen. These forces, although diminished and disrupted from the past several years of fighting, represent a military capacity that has shown it can cause real pain for our troops, our allies and partners, and the global economy.

We have already experienced deadly Iranian retaliatory strikes against American bases across the Middle East. Just because their missile strikes have slowed down, we should not be given the false confidence that they are finished. This regime is cunning.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil supply flows, is now essentially closed. Energy prices are spiking, and the stock markets are falling as a result. Further, cyber attacks on our critical infrastructure here--our financial systems, our energy grids, our military networks--are very possible.

We cannot overlook another fact. The administration has refused to rule out deploying American forces into Iran. Let me say that again. The administration will not rule out putting American boots on Iranian soil. That kind of invasion would not just be a difficult campaign; it would, in my view, be catastrophic. Indeed, it would make the Iraq operation look rather straightforward by comparison.

Further, there has been speculation about not a major land operation but the potential for a Special Forces operation to seize Iran's enriched uranium. This would be exceedingly difficult and would require deploying hundreds of our forces deep into Iran, at great peril. Even if successful, such an operation would not change the Government of Iran and, although dealing perhaps a serious setback, would likely harden the fanatical approach of the IRGC and increase the degree and duration of retaliation.

Like in 2003, I am disappointed by the lack of scrutiny from my Republican colleagues. These are basic questions that remain unanswered. What are President Trump's objectives? I have listened carefully to this administration, and their rationale has shifted constantly--from protecting Iranian protesters, to eliminating Iran's nuclear program, to destroying its ballistic missile arsenal, to what now appears to be regime change. President Trump declared last week that he wants no less than unconditional surrender and he should have a role in choosing Iran's next leader. These comments reveal a stunning failure to understand Iran and its history.

I worry that the President and his advisers have convinced themselves they are immune from the lessons of history. Destroying Iran without a credible postwar plan is not likely to create a stable, democratic state. Instead, it could create a chaotic power vacuum that drags in the rest of the Middle East. Ironically, it could further entrench the most radical elements of Iran's leadership to be even more organized and ruthless and could send the message across the globe that acquiring a nuclear weapon is the ultimate path to avoiding President Trump's unpredictable wrath.

Beyond the lack of strategic planning, I am also troubled by the military readiness and financial cost of this conflict. The Senate Armed Services Committee has sent formal inquiries to the Department of Defense requesting projected costs, which by some estimates could run as high as $1 billion a day. Reports indicate that the administration is already preparing a supplemental appropriation request to Congress for emergency funding--potentially more than $50 billion--to backfill the massive munitions loss and battle damage incurred in the opening days of this war.

But let me be very clear: I will not support a blank check for this war of choice.

In the same 2003 speech I discussed earlier, I asked several questions that I believe history has since validated.

We are debating Iraq today, but will we apply this

preemptive doctrine to Iran or North Korea tomorrow? How do

we prevent others from adopting this same strategy if we have

enshrined it as the centerpiece of our policy? For example,

how do we counsel the Indians to refrain from preemptively

attacking Pakistan or vice versa? From New Delhi or

Islamabad, the threat looks ``sufficient'' and striking first

is enticing.

That question is no longer hypothetical. Today, China is watching our war against Iran with intense interest as it considers its posture toward Taiwan. Russia is watching as it calculates what remains possible beyond Ukraine. They are also very much enthused by the extraordinary increase in the price of oil and restrictions taken off by the United States on their sales in certain countries. What was a floundering economy is now getting strengthened by our actions in the Middle East, which will have, I think, severe consequences in Ukraine and elsewhere.

When the United States launches preemptive wars--whether in Iran, in Venezuela, or perhaps Cuba--without bothering to make any public case or good-faith legal argument, we diminish American power; we give permission for other nations to throw their own military weight against their neighbors; we hand every ambitious autocrat in the world the same justification we have just used ourselves. The precedent we set today will outlast this Presidency by decades.

Make no mistake, the Iranian regime is a brutal, corrupt institution that has denied its people basic rights for nearly 50 years. I do not mourn Ayatollah Khamenei. I do not minimize the genuine threat that Iran's nuclear program and missile arsenal represent to the United States and our allies. The day the Iranian regime is replaced by a government that genuinely serves the Iranian people will be a good day for the world. But, recall, President Trump ripped up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action--a real diplomatic framework that was constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions. He refused to negotiate a replacement.

Just 2 weeks ago, the Omani Foreign Minister, who served as a key intermediary between Washington and Tehran, reported that there had been significant progress in the ongoing negotiations just before these strikes began. The President broke the diplomatic solution and is now trying to bomb his way out of a crisis of his own making. He had other, better, choices. He chose war, and now, he owes the American people a full accounting.

I would ask my colleagues who support this war the same questions I have been directing to the administration. What is the theory of victory? What does success look like, and how will we know when we have achieved it? What legal authority does the administration believe it is operating under given that this Congress has not authorized this conflict? What is the day-after plan for Iran--for its government, its 93 million citizens, its borders, its proxies? What is the plan if this regime does not fall, if the Revolutionary Guard fights on for years? Will the administration commit that American ground forces will not be sent into Iran?

To my Republican colleagues, I urge you to ask these same questions and to demand answers from the administration. History is watching, and in 20 years, you, too, may wish you held this President to greater account.

So far, seven American servicemembers have been killed. Hundreds more have been wounded. To their families, this Chamber--on both sides--owes our deepest condolences and our solemn commitment to ensure their sacrifice is honored. America's sons and daughters have gone into harm's way carrying the full weight of this Nation's trust. They deserve leadership and a strategy worthy of their service.

I had the great privilege to serve in the U.S. Army. I believe in American power, and I believe we should be willing to use it. I believe in American leadership on the global stage. But power without wisdom or restraint is just recklessness, and leadership without accountability or conscience is just theater, a performance to serve the President's ego, not America.

Mr. President, I will close by recalling the same words with which I concluded my remarks on this floor 23 years ago:

Great events will turn on our deliberations. But, at this

moment, my thoughts are not on historic forces. Rather, I

think about the young Americans who will carry out our

policies. They are prepared to sacrifice everything. We owe

them more than we can ever repay. One thing that we certainly

owe them is our best judgment. I have tried to give them

mine.

Mr. President, those words are no less true today. The young men and women the President has sent into this conflict are prepared to give everything. We owe them our unsparing questions. The President owes them a plan. We owe them the honest and rigorous judgment of the Commander in Chief and the leaders he has entrusted with the gravest decisions a democracy can make.

I have tried, again, to give my best judgment, and I urge my colleagues to give theirs.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Foreign Stablecoin Transparency Act. This important legislation would close a loophole in the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins, or GENIUS, Act by extending a provision that requires large U.S. stablecoin issuers to undergo a full financial statement audit to also cover large foreign stablecoin issuers that offer and sell their products to U.S. investors.

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to a real- world asset, which under the GENIUS Act is the U.S. dollar. The basic promise that stablecoin issuers make to their holders is that a stablecoin will always be redeemable for a dollar on demand. You give a stablecoin company a dollar, the company gives you back an IOU that is recorded on a blockchain. The stablecoin company takes your dollar and invests it in various safe assets that are purportedly able to be liquidated at any time to meet redemption requests.

All kinds of companies that handle the American peoples' money must undergo financial statement audits. U.S.-based dollar stablecoin issuers with $50 billion of stablecoins in circulation must get an audit. Banks of all sizes must get audits, even the smallest community banks. Many States require licensed money transmitters to submit audited financial statements to provide transparency and verify their financial health. Even unregistered private funds that are sponsored by U.S. investment advisers must get audits. And of course, all public companies must get audits. So it strikes me as entirely sensible to extend this very same requirement to foreign issuers of dollar-backed stablecoins, which handle Americans' money--just like so many other institutions that are subject to audit requirements.

Unless stablecoin issuers are audited, there is no independent verification that the company has enough assets to cover all stablecoins in circulation. Instead, holders must take the word of the issuer. If the issuer does not have sufficient reserves or is found to be cooking the books, then a stablecoin company may experience a ``run'' on its assets and holders will not be able to get their money back despite being sold something that they are told is safe and redeemable on demand. That is why we need audits of all companies that issue dollar-backed stablecoins to Americans.

A major flaw of the GENIUS Act is that stablecoins issued by companies with headquarters outside the United States are not required to undergo audits. Unless this flaw is addressed, the world's largest dollar-backed stablecoin--Tether, which is based in El Salvador--can be freely offered, sold, and used by Americans without being compelled to provide a full accounting of the reserves backing its coin. Tether purportedly has $187 billion in assets and is an essential piece of the crypto financial system plumbing. All manner of crypto-assets are bought and sold not with fiat currency, but with dollar-backed stablecoins like Tether.

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee in 2025 Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testified, ``I believe U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins should be fully audited.'' Earlier this week before the Senate Appropriations Committee, I asked him whether this specific statement included Tether, and he said ``I absolutely agree with you, Tether should be audited.

Although Secretary Lutnick has no formal role in overseeing cryptocurrency, he has significant experience in this area. His former investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald has very deep ties to Tether. Cantor owns a 5 percent stake in the company, manages the reserves backing its stablecoin, and has cosponsored various crypto investment funds with Tether.

My legislation would require foreign stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar like Tether to undergo an audit, no matter where the company is located. And a full audit is essential. In 2021, Tether was fined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for lying about its reserves. The CFTC found

that ``Tether misrepresented to customers and the market that Tether maintained sufficient fiat reserves to back every USDt in circulation `one-to-one' . . . and that Tether would undergo routine, professional audits to demonstrate that it maintained `100% reserves at all times.' In fact . . . Tether failed to maintain fiat currency reserves . . . to back every USDt in circulation.'' Despite Tether executives promising for years that they want to get an audit, we have yet to see them do so. Instead, Tether has published quarterly ``attestations'' by the Italian arm of a mid-tier accounting firm that simply verify information that Tether provides to that firm using procedures that are mutually agreed. That is very different than true independent third- party verification based upon standardized procedures with criminal and civil penalties if financial statements contain false information.

If foreign stablecoin issuers want the privilege of creating and handling the American people's money, then I agree with Secretary Lutnick that it is entirely sensible for them to open up their books for the American people to see, just as we expect of large U.S. stablecoin companies, banks, and other payments companies. If the goal of the GENIUS bill is to create incentives for stablecoin issuers to come onshore and operate fully within the U.S. regulatory perimeter, then we must close this alarming gap that incentivizes dollar creation by foreign companies.

I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Foreign Stablecoin Transparency Act. This important legislation would close a loophole in the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins, or GENIUS, Act by extending a provision that requires large U.S. stablecoin issuers to undergo a full financial statement audit to also cover large foreign stablecoin issuers that offer and sell their products to U.S. investors.

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to a real- world asset, which under the GENIUS Act is the U.S. dollar. The basic promise that stablecoin issuers make to their holders is that a stablecoin will always be redeemable for a dollar on demand. You give a stablecoin company a dollar, the company gives you back an IOU that is recorded on a blockchain. The stablecoin company takes your dollar and invests it in various safe assets that are purportedly able to be liquidated at any time to meet redemption requests.

All kinds of companies that handle the American peoples' money must undergo financial statement audits. U.S.-based dollar stablecoin issuers with $50 billion of stablecoins in circulation must get an audit. Banks of all sizes must get audits, even the smallest community banks. Many States require licensed money transmitters to submit audited financial statements to provide transparency and verify their financial health. Even unregistered private funds that are sponsored by U.S. investment advisers must get audits. And of course, all public companies must get audits. So it strikes me as entirely sensible to extend this very same requirement to foreign issuers of dollar-backed stablecoins, which handle Americans' money--just like so many other institutions that are subject to audit requirements.

Unless stablecoin issuers are audited, there is no independent verification that the company has enough assets to cover all stablecoins in circulation. Instead, holders must take the word of the issuer. If the issuer does not have sufficient reserves or is found to be cooking the books, then a stablecoin company may experience a ``run'' on its assets and holders will not be able to get their money back despite being sold something that they are told is safe and redeemable on demand. That is why we need audits of all companies that issue dollar-backed stablecoins to Americans.

A major flaw of the GENIUS Act is that stablecoins issued by companies with headquarters outside the United States are not required to undergo audits. Unless this flaw is addressed, the world's largest dollar-backed stablecoin--Tether, which is based in El Salvador--can be freely offered, sold, and used by Americans without being compelled to provide a full accounting of the reserves backing its coin. Tether purportedly has $187 billion in assets and is an essential piece of the crypto financial system plumbing. All manner of crypto-assets are bought and sold not with fiat currency, but with dollar-backed stablecoins like Tether.

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee in 2025 Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testified, ``I believe U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins should be fully audited.'' Earlier this week before the Senate Appropriations Committee, I asked him whether this specific statement included Tether, and he said ``I absolutely agree with you, Tether should be audited.

Although Secretary Lutnick has no formal role in overseeing cryptocurrency, he has significant experience in this area. His former investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald has very deep ties to Tether. Cantor owns a 5 percent stake in the company, manages the reserves backing its stablecoin, and has cosponsored various crypto investment funds with Tether.

My legislation would require foreign stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar like Tether to undergo an audit, no matter where the company is located. And a full audit is essential. In 2021, Tether was fined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for lying about its reserves. The CFTC found

that ``Tether misrepresented to customers and the market that Tether maintained sufficient fiat reserves to back every USDt in circulation `one-to-one' . . . and that Tether would undergo routine, professional audits to demonstrate that it maintained `100% reserves at all times.' In fact . . . Tether failed to maintain fiat currency reserves . . . to back every USDt in circulation.'' Despite Tether executives promising for years that they want to get an audit, we have yet to see them do so. Instead, Tether has published quarterly ``attestations'' by the Italian arm of a mid-tier accounting firm that simply verify information that Tether provides to that firm using procedures that are mutually agreed. That is very different than true independent third- party verification based upon standardized procedures with criminal and civil penalties if financial statements contain false information.

If foreign stablecoin issuers want the privilege of creating and handling the American people's money, then I agree with Secretary Lutnick that it is entirely sensible for them to open up their books for the American people to see, just as we expect of large U.S. stablecoin companies, banks, and other payments companies. If the goal of the GENIUS bill is to create incentives for stablecoin issuers to come onshore and operate fully within the U.S. regulatory perimeter, then we must close this alarming gap that incentivizes dollar creation by foreign companies.

I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Vice Admiral Nancy Hann upon her retirement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration after nearly 30 years of distinguished service to our Nation.

Vice Admiral Hann's career reflects the highest traditions of uniformed service: professional excellence, operational expertise, and an unwavering commitment to the workforce and mission. She began her career as a fisheries observer, and after commissioning in the NOAA Corps, she built her leadership through hands-on operational service as a deck officer at sea, a pilot in NOAA aircraft, and a flight meteorologist supporting missions critical to environmental intelligence and public safety.

As a NOAA pilot and flight meteorologist, Vice Admiral Hann flew demanding missions in support of hurricane forecasting, marine mammal research, and environmental response, working alongside scientists and crews in some of the most challenging operational environments NOAA faces. Those experiences shaped a leader grounded in real-world operations and the people who carry them out.

She went on to serve in a wide range of senior operational and management roles, including commanding officer of the NOAA Aircraft Operations Center, senior leadership positions within the NOAA Corps and the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, and NOAA liaison to U.S. Pacific Command. Most recently, she served as Director of the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps and Deputy Under Secretary for Operations, overseeing NOAA's ships, aircraft, uncrewed systems, diving programs, and small boats worldwide.

Through these senior roles, Vice Admiral Hann's leadership also had a lasting impact in Rhode Island. She was instrumental in supporting NOAA's Atlantic Fleet and advancing the relocation of the Marine Operations Center--Atlantic to Newport, reinforcing the Ocean State's role as a hub for maritime operations and strengthening NOAA's operational readiness.

A true trailblazer, Vice Admiral Hann became the first woman to attain the rank of vice admiral--one of only three officers promoted to that rank in NOAA Corps history--and served as the first and only commissioned officer to act as NOAA Administrator. She did not simply break barriers; she built pathways, expanding opportunity and strengthening the professional culture for those who followed.

Throughout her career, Vice Admiral Hann championed inclusion, mentorship, and workforce development. She has emphasized that leadership is about removing obstacles so others can succeed, and she consistently worked to create environments where people could thrive and do their best work. Her efforts helped prepare the next generation of NOAA scientists, pilots, engineers, and mariners to carry forward the Agency's vital mission.

As Vice Admiral Hann concludes her career, the Nation owes her a deep debt of gratitude. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Vice Admiral Nancy Hann for her extraordinary service and in congratulating her on a well-earned retirement.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Predatory Lending Elimination Act along with many of my colleagues. This important legislation would extend the bipartisan Military Lending Act, MLA, protections for Active-Duty servicemembers and their families to all Americans by imposing a nationwide 36 percent cap on the annual percentage rate, APR, for most extensions of consumer credit.

The MLA was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 2006 to rein in payday and other unscrupulous lenders that targeted American troops with abusive and predatory loans. Unfortunately, the MLA does not protect veterans or Gold Star families from these exploitative practices. Servicemembers and

their families should not lose important consumer protections simply because they retire, separate from honorable service, or lose their loved ones. Frankly, all Americans deserve to be shielded from these kinds of predatory loans, and that is just what our bill does.

Hundreds of millions of American consumers could benefit from a 36- percent APR cap. In States that do not have such a cap, predatory lenders can offer loans with triple-digit APRs that trap individuals in cycles of debt. For instance, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 80 percent of payday loans are rolled over or renewed within 2 weeks. This practice can subject borrowers not just to high nominal interest rates but also to high fees that can quickly surpass the amount of money originally borrowed. These are hallmarks of predatory lending and poor underwriting.

According to a coalition of community organizations, payday lenders are known to target the most vulnerable, including seniors, veterans, and low-income borrowers. Many in these communities are already struggling to make ends meet as they navigate the President's tariffs and stubbornly high prices, and are continuing to pay exorbitant APRs may cause them to fall deeper into economic insecurity. This is why it is important to extend strong protections against unscrupulous lenders to all Americans.

The MLA's successful track record demonstrates that providing reasonable, responsible limits on interest rates does not cut off consumers' access to credit. According to a May 2021 report from the Department of Defense, ``credit cards, auto loans, and personal loans are widely available at risk-based rates under the 36 percent [military] APR'' and ``[s]ervice members continue to have ample access to necessary credit.''

Moreover, this legislation would follow the trend in many States towards greater protections against predatory loans. Nineteen States and the District of Columbia have enacted 36 percent APR caps or banned payday loans. Lenders in these States have incentives to offer more affordable loans that borrowers have an ability to repay. The same incentives should apply across the Nation.

I thank the 176 consumer advocacy groups, faith-based organizations, veteran service organizations, and trade associations that support this bill, including the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, the Center for Responsible Lending, Americans for Financial Reform, Amalgamated Bank, the Military Officers Association of America, and the National Military Family Association.

I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Predatory Lending Elimination Act along with many of my colleagues. This important legislation would extend the bipartisan Military Lending Act, MLA, protections for Active-Duty servicemembers and their families to all Americans by imposing a nationwide 36 percent cap on the annual percentage rate, APR, for most extensions of consumer credit.

The MLA was enacted on a bipartisan basis in 2006 to rein in payday and other unscrupulous lenders that targeted American troops with abusive and predatory loans. Unfortunately, the MLA does not protect veterans or Gold Star families from these exploitative practices. Servicemembers and

their families should not lose important consumer protections simply because they retire, separate from honorable service, or lose their loved ones. Frankly, all Americans deserve to be shielded from these kinds of predatory loans, and that is just what our bill does.

Hundreds of millions of American consumers could benefit from a 36- percent APR cap. In States that do not have such a cap, predatory lenders can offer loans with triple-digit APRs that trap individuals in cycles of debt. For instance, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 80 percent of payday loans are rolled over or renewed within 2 weeks. This practice can subject borrowers not just to high nominal interest rates but also to high fees that can quickly surpass the amount of money originally borrowed. These are hallmarks of predatory lending and poor underwriting.

According to a coalition of community organizations, payday lenders are known to target the most vulnerable, including seniors, veterans, and low-income borrowers. Many in these communities are already struggling to make ends meet as they navigate the President's tariffs and stubbornly high prices, and are continuing to pay exorbitant APRs may cause them to fall deeper into economic insecurity. This is why it is important to extend strong protections against unscrupulous lenders to all Americans.

The MLA's successful track record demonstrates that providing reasonable, responsible limits on interest rates does not cut off consumers' access to credit. According to a May 2021 report from the Department of Defense, ``credit cards, auto loans, and personal loans are widely available at risk-based rates under the 36 percent [military] APR'' and ``[s]ervice members continue to have ample access to necessary credit.''

Moreover, this legislation would follow the trend in many States towards greater protections against predatory loans. Nineteen States and the District of Columbia have enacted 36 percent APR caps or banned payday loans. Lenders in these States have incentives to offer more affordable loans that borrowers have an ability to repay. The same incentives should apply across the Nation.

I thank the 176 consumer advocacy groups, faith-based organizations, veteran service organizations, and trade associations that support this bill, including the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, the Center for Responsible Lending, Americans for Financial Reform, Amalgamated Bank, the Military Officers Association of America, and the National Military Family Association.

I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, among the many challenges to improving educational outcomes for students and recruiting and retaining educators for our public schools is the condition of school facilities. A 2020 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report found that over half, 54 percent, of school districts nationwide need to update or replace multiple systems in their schools, such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, HVAC, or plumbing.

Now is the time to invest in school infrastructure. Doing so will improve the resilience of our schools, bolster student learning, reduce carbon emissions, and create jobs. That is why I am proud to partner with Representative Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in introducing the Rebuild America's Schools Act. I would like to thank my Senate colleagues who are joining in this effort, including Senators Van Hollen, Kaine, Booker, Alsobrooks, Cortez Masto, Whitehouse, Merkley, Hirono, Smith, Shaheen, Durbin, Blumenthal, Heinrich, Padilla, Whitehouse, Markey, and Lujan.

Public schools play a vital role in every community across the Nation. They play a central role in our democracy--educating the next generation, serving as polling places for our elections, hosting community meetings and events, and so much more. When there is a natural disaster or an emergency, people often gather at their public schools for shelter, information, and resources. Public schools are public infrastructure, and we should invest in them just as we invest in roads and bridges.

Safe, healthy, modern, well-equipped schools are also essential for advancing student achievement and ensuring that the next generation is prepared to meet the economic, social, environmental, and global challenges our Nation faces. Yet, too many of the approximately 56 million children and adults who learn and work in our public schools spend their days in facilities that fail to make the grade. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave school infrastructure a D-plus on its latest report card.

Nearly 40 percent of public school were built before 1970 and contain hazardous construction materials such as asbestos, lead, and PCBs. An analysis from the Center for Climate Integrity found that more than 13,700 public schools that did not need air-conditioning in 1970 need it today. These essential retrofits are estimated to cost $40 billion. The 2025 State of Our Schools Report, a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., the National Council on School Facilities, and the International Well Building Institute, identified a nearly $90 billion annual shortfall in school facilities investment. States and local communities cannot bridge this gap alone, especially when many struggle to simply keep teachers and staff on the payroll. And we know the budget shortfalls hit low-income and minority communities the hardest. The GAO noted that capital construction expenditures, on average, were about $300 less per student in high-poverty districts compared to low-poverty districts. With inflation, interest rates, and extreme weather events on the rise, the gap between what is needed to maintain safe and modern schools and what communities can afford will only grow.

Addressing this need is the right thing to do for our students, and it will also create good jobs and grow the economy. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, every $1 billion spent on construction generates 17,785 jobs.

The Rebuild America's Schools Act will create a Federal-State partnership for school infrastructure. It will provide, over 10 years, a total of $130 billion in direct grants and school construction bonds to help fill the annual gap in school facility capital needs, while creating nearly 2 million jobs.

Specifically, the Rebuild America's Schools Act will provide $100 billion in formula funds to States for local competitive grants for school repair, renovation, and construction. States will focus assistance on communities with the greatest financial need, encourage green construction practices, and expand access to high-speed broadband to ensure that all students have access to digital learning. Our legislation would also provide $30 billion for qualified school infrastructure bonds, QSIBs, $10 billion each year from fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year 2029 and restore the qualified zone academy bonds, QZABs, that were eliminated in the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The legislation also eases the matching requirements and expands the authority and eligible purposes of QZABs to allow local education agencies to construct, rehabilitate, retrofit, or repair school facilities. The Rebuild America's Schools Act also supports American workers by ensuring that projects use American-made iron, steel, and manufactured products and meet labor standards.

I would like to thank the broad coalition of educators, community organizations, unions, civil rights advocates, and employers that have provided feedback and support for this legislation, including the 21st Century Schools Fund, AFT: Education, Healthcare, Public Services, American Library Association, BlueGreen Alliance, Build America's School Infrastructure Coalition, BASIC, Children and Nature Network, American Institute of Architects, AIA, American School Superintendents Association, AASA, Council of Great City Schools, Craven County Schools, Green Schoolyards America, Greenbank Associates, Healthy Schools Campaign, Heart of America, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, SMART, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Kentucky School Plant Management Association, National Council on School Facilities, National Education Association, National School Plan Management Association, North American Association for Environmental Education, Rentokil Terminix, Safe Traces, the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, UndauntedK12, and U.S. Green Building Council.

We have no time to waste in fixing our deteriorating school infrastructure. I urge our colleagues to support the Rebuild America's Schools Act and press for its passage.

Mr. President, among the many challenges to improving educational outcomes for students and recruiting and retaining educators for our public schools is the condition of school facilities. A 2020 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report found that over half, 54 percent, of school districts nationwide need to update or replace multiple systems in their schools, such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, HVAC, or plumbing.

Now is the time to invest in school infrastructure. Doing so will improve the resilience of our schools, bolster student learning, reduce carbon emissions, and create jobs. That is why I am proud to partner with Representative Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in introducing the Rebuild America's Schools Act. I would like to thank my Senate colleagues who are joining in this effort, including Senators Van Hollen, Kaine, Booker, Alsobrooks, Cortez Masto, Whitehouse, Merkley, Hirono, Smith, Shaheen, Durbin, Blumenthal, Heinrich, Padilla, Whitehouse, Markey, and Lujan.

Public schools play a vital role in every community across the Nation. They play a central role in our democracy--educating the next generation, serving as polling places for our elections, hosting community meetings and events, and so much more. When there is a natural disaster or an emergency, people often gather at their public schools for shelter, information, and resources. Public schools are public infrastructure, and we should invest in them just as we invest in roads and bridges.

Safe, healthy, modern, well-equipped schools are also essential for advancing student achievement and ensuring that the next generation is prepared to meet the economic, social, environmental, and global challenges our Nation faces. Yet, too many of the approximately 56 million children and adults who learn and work in our public schools spend their days in facilities that fail to make the grade. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave school infrastructure a D-plus on its latest report card.

Nearly 40 percent of public school were built before 1970 and contain hazardous construction materials such as asbestos, lead, and PCBs. An analysis from the Center for Climate Integrity found that more than 13,700 public schools that did not need air-conditioning in 1970 need it today. These essential retrofits are estimated to cost $40 billion. The 2025 State of Our Schools Report, a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., the National Council on School Facilities, and the International Well Building Institute, identified a nearly $90 billion annual shortfall in school facilities investment. States and local communities cannot bridge this gap alone, especially when many struggle to simply keep teachers and staff on the payroll. And we know the budget shortfalls hit low-income and minority communities the hardest. The GAO noted that capital construction expenditures, on average, were about $300 less per student in high-poverty districts compared to low-poverty districts. With inflation, interest rates, and extreme weather events on the rise, the gap between what is needed to maintain safe and modern schools and what communities can afford will only grow.

Addressing this need is the right thing to do for our students, and it will also create good jobs and grow the economy. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, every $1 billion spent on construction generates 17,785 jobs.

The Rebuild America's Schools Act will create a Federal-State partnership for school infrastructure. It will provide, over 10 years, a total of $130 billion in direct grants and school construction bonds to help fill the annual gap in school facility capital needs, while creating nearly 2 million jobs.

Specifically, the Rebuild America's Schools Act will provide $100 billion in formula funds to States for local competitive grants for school repair, renovation, and construction. States will focus assistance on communities with the greatest financial need, encourage green construction practices, and expand access to high-speed broadband to ensure that all students have access to digital learning. Our legislation would also provide $30 billion for qualified school infrastructure bonds, QSIBs, $10 billion each year from fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year 2029 and restore the qualified zone academy bonds, QZABs, that were eliminated in the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The legislation also eases the matching requirements and expands the authority and eligible purposes of QZABs to allow local education agencies to construct, rehabilitate, retrofit, or repair school facilities. The Rebuild America's Schools Act also supports American workers by ensuring that projects use American-made iron, steel, and manufactured products and meet labor standards.

I would like to thank the broad coalition of educators, community organizations, unions, civil rights advocates, and employers that have provided feedback and support for this legislation, including the 21st Century Schools Fund, AFT: Education, Healthcare, Public Services, American Library Association, BlueGreen Alliance, Build America's School Infrastructure Coalition, BASIC, Children and Nature Network, American Institute of Architects, AIA, American School Superintendents Association, AASA, Council of Great City Schools, Craven County Schools, Green Schoolyards America, Greenbank Associates, Healthy Schools Campaign, Heart of America, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, SMART, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Kentucky School Plant Management Association, National Council on School Facilities, National Education Association, National School Plan Management Association, North American Association for Environmental Education, Rentokil Terminix, Safe Traces, the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, UndauntedK12, and U.S. Green Building Council.

We have no time to waste in fixing our deteriorating school infrastructure. I urge our colleagues to support the Rebuild America's Schools Act and press for its passage.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act with Senators Smith, Wyden, Merkley, and Schumer. 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. I want to thank the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, and the National Community Stabilization Trust for their support of this bill.

For over a decade, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have sold nonperforming and reperforming loans to protect their balance sheets. These transactions, known as note sales, transfer ownership of hundreds or thousands of mortgages to bulk purchasers, which are predominately private equity firms and other institutional investors. While selling nonperforming and reperforming loans may marginally reduce financial risk for FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, these sales harm borrowers and shift home ownership from individuals to large investors.

Loans insured by FHA or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have strong foreclosure protections for borrowers that ensure servicers offer specific loss mitigation options to eligible borrowers before beginning foreclosure proceedings. These protections often help borrowers avoid foreclosure and catch up on their payments, but borrowers lose many of these protections 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 90 percent of the homeowners who were subject to an FHA reverse mortgage note sale through 2024 ultimately lost their homes. Meanwhile, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2019 that nonperforming loans sold by FHA are more likely to face foreclosure than comparable loans that FHA keeps on its own balance sheet. Similarly, 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.

Making matters worse. note sale purchasers are predominately private equity arms and institutional investors, which often move foreclosed properties out of the owner-occupied market. Approximately 35 percent 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 sit on a lender's books. In other words, more than 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 data is similar for FHA notes sales. Of the homes in FHA pools that were foreclosed on or went through deed in lieu of foreclosure, 40 percent were ultimately bought by investors.

The Preserving Homes and Communities Act tackles these problems. It would protect homeowners by requiring mortgage servicers to complete Agency-required loss mitigation actions before FHA, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac can sell a nonperforming mortgage and by improving loss mitigation protections for these mortgages after they are sold.

It would also 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. Finally, it requires 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 help homeowners remain in their homes and prevent institutional investors from acquiring homes on the cheap from Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Even President Trump has acknowledged the negative impact institutional investors are having in the single-family housing market and has called for reforms. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will embrace this proposal and work with me to make it law.

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act with Senators Smith, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Baldwin, Whitehouse, Kim, Gallego, Murphy, and Slotkin. Our bill would provide approximately $50 billion over a decade to help build and preserve 2.9 million units of affordable housing and is fully paid for through a new tax that disincentives institutional investors from purchasing large numbers of single-family homes.

Driven by a shortage of as many as 6.8 million homes nationwide, home prices have surged 51 percent and rents 36 percent over the last 6 years, according to the National Association of Realtors and Zillow. During that same period, large investors exacerbated this shortage by purchasing hundreds of thousands of single-family homes across the United States, many of which they hold within portfolios as rentals, preventing more families from reaching home ownership. In the first 9 months of 2025, around 30 percent of single-family homes on the market were bought by investors, not hard-working households who cannot compete with private equity and other large investors that can make all-cash offers, waive contingencies, and provide additional concessions.

Institutional investor activity within the single-family housing market began in the wake of the great recession and accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has compounded other housing market pressures that are driving up costs, including years of underbuilding and a shift among developers toward building larger, more expensive homes. As a result, average Americans are being crowded out of home ownership. Researchers at Harvard University report that home prices in 2024 were five times the median household income--significantly higher than the price-to-income ratio of three that traditionally signifies an affordably priced housing market.

Surging home prices and rents particularly strain moderate- and low- income Americans. Homelessness has risen in line with housing prices and is up 36 percent since 2019. Unfortunately, existing Federal investments in low-income housing are insufficient to solve this affordability crisis. Indeed, in 2023, those same 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 only approximately 25 percent of eligible households can get housing aid.

The Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act would address the outsize role institutional investors have in the housing market while also addressing the need for more housing units. It would raise $51 billion over a decade by taxing investors that purchase large numbers of single-family homes, with revenue split between the Housing Trust Fund, HTF, and Capital Magnet Fund, CMF, to help build and rehab 285,000 rental units for extremely low-income Americans through HTF grants and help finance 2.7 million rental and home ownership units for low-income families via CMF, which leverages other public and private investments.

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

I am encouraged that President Trump has caught on to the fact that institutional investors are, in his words, ``crowding out families seeking to buy homes.'' He added in a recent Executive order ``that large institutional investors should not buy single-family homes that could otherwise be purchased by families.'' This is the very issue that the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act seeks to address, so I hope that we can build bipartisan support for its passage.

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, Americans for Financial Reform, and Consumer Action--and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Preserving Homes and Communities Act with Senators Smith, Wyden, Merkley, and Schumer. 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. I want to thank the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients, and the National Community Stabilization Trust for their support of this bill.

For over a decade, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac have sold nonperforming and reperforming loans to protect their balance sheets. These transactions, known as note sales, transfer ownership of hundreds or thousands of mortgages to bulk purchasers, which are predominately private equity firms and other institutional investors. While selling nonperforming and reperforming loans may marginally reduce financial risk for FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, these sales harm borrowers and shift home ownership from individuals to large investors.

Loans insured by FHA or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have strong foreclosure protections for borrowers that ensure servicers offer specific loss mitigation options to eligible borrowers before beginning foreclosure proceedings. These protections often help borrowers avoid foreclosure and catch up on their payments, but borrowers lose many of these protections 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 90 percent of the homeowners who were subject to an FHA reverse mortgage note sale through 2024 ultimately lost their homes. Meanwhile, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2019 that nonperforming loans sold by FHA are more likely to face foreclosure than comparable loans that FHA keeps on its own balance sheet. Similarly, 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.

Making matters worse. note sale purchasers are predominately private equity arms and institutional investors, which often move foreclosed properties out of the owner-occupied market. Approximately 35 percent 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 sit on a lender's books. In other words, more than 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 data is similar for FHA notes sales. Of the homes in FHA pools that were foreclosed on or went through deed in lieu of foreclosure, 40 percent were ultimately bought by investors.

The Preserving Homes and Communities Act tackles these problems. It would protect homeowners by requiring mortgage servicers to complete Agency-required loss mitigation actions before FHA, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac can sell a nonperforming mortgage and by improving loss mitigation protections for these mortgages after they are sold.

It would also 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. Finally, it requires 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 help homeowners remain in their homes and prevent institutional investors from acquiring homes on the cheap from Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Even President Trump has acknowledged the negative impact institutional investors are having in the single-family housing market and has called for reforms. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will embrace this proposal and work with me to make it law.

Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act with Senators Smith, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Baldwin, Whitehouse, Kim, Gallego, Murphy, and Slotkin. Our bill would provide approximately $50 billion over a decade to help build and preserve 2.9 million units of affordable housing and is fully paid for through a new tax that disincentives institutional investors from purchasing large numbers of single-family homes.

Driven by a shortage of as many as 6.8 million homes nationwide, home prices have surged 51 percent and rents 36 percent over the last 6 years, according to the National Association of Realtors and Zillow. During that same period, large investors exacerbated this shortage by purchasing hundreds of thousands of single-family homes across the United States, many of which they hold within portfolios as rentals, preventing more families from reaching home ownership. In the first 9 months of 2025, around 30 percent of single-family homes on the market were bought by investors, not hard-working households who cannot compete with private equity and other large investors that can make all-cash offers, waive contingencies, and provide additional concessions.

Institutional investor activity within the single-family housing market began in the wake of the great recession and accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has compounded other housing market pressures that are driving up costs, including years of underbuilding and a shift among developers toward building larger, more expensive homes. As a result, average Americans are being crowded out of home ownership. Researchers at Harvard University report that home prices in 2024 were five times the median household income--significantly higher than the price-to-income ratio of three that traditionally signifies an affordably priced housing market.

Surging home prices and rents particularly strain moderate- and low- income Americans. Homelessness has risen in line with housing prices and is up 36 percent since 2019. Unfortunately, existing Federal investments in low-income housing are insufficient to solve this affordability crisis. Indeed, in 2023, those same 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 only approximately 25 percent of eligible households can get housing aid.

The Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act would address the outsize role institutional investors have in the housing market while also addressing the need for more housing units. It would raise $51 billion over a decade by taxing investors that purchase large numbers of single-family homes, with revenue split between the Housing Trust Fund, HTF, and Capital Magnet Fund, CMF, to help build and rehab 285,000 rental units for extremely low-income Americans through HTF grants and help finance 2.7 million rental and home ownership units for low-income families via CMF, which leverages other public and private investments.

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

I am encouraged that President Trump has caught on to the fact that institutional investors are, in his words, ``crowding out families seeking to buy homes.'' He added in a recent Executive order ``that large institutional investors should not buy single-family homes that could otherwise be purchased by families.'' This is the very issue that the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act seeks to address, so I hope that we can build bipartisan support for its passage.

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, Americans for Financial Reform, and Consumer Action--and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Raymond Neirinckx after an incredible 43-year career, including the past 26 years as coordinator of the Rhode Island Housing Resource Commission.

I first met and began working with Ray when I was serving in the Rhode Island State Senate, and I was immediately struck by his compassion and intelligence. Indeed, for nearly five decades, Ray used his considerable talents not for personal gain, but to help others in great need.

Throughout his housing advocacy career, he counseled over 1,000 Rhode Islanders facing mortgage foreclosure. He helped these families navigate complex financial documents and often communicated with lenders on their behalf. Ray's painstaking work combing through legal documents and financial regulations helped many, many Rhode Islanders keep their homes despite dire circumstances. He would often go above and beyond what was required under his role, helping Rhode Islanders who could not avoid foreclosure get back on their feet. When I connected struggling Rhode Islanders with Ray, I knew they were in the best hands possible.

Just as my constituents have relied on Ray's advice, I have often depended on Ray's expertise here in Congress. As I have drafted, considered, and voted on complex housing finance legislation, I have always turned to Ray for an analysis of how these proposals would operate in the real world and to understand what their real impact would be on Rhode Islanders. His insights were invaluable.

While I will miss Ray at the Rhode Island Housing Resource Commission, I know that he is still just a phone call away. And luckily for Rhode Island, retirement is not the end of Ray's public service story. He is leading the first community development course within the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, work that will help people trying to turn their lives around.

Ray, thank you for decades of extraordinary work, for dedicating your career to caring for and supporting your fellow Rhode Islanders, and for being a trusted partner. I wish you luck as you begin this new chapter.

Mr. President, last week, this body advanced a War Powers Resolution to rein in President Trump's unauthorized military actions in Venezuela. This week, we will vote on final passage. I urge my colleagues to support it.

It is important to recall how we arrived here. What happened on January 3--the military raid in Caracas, the capture of Nicolas Maduro, and the President's declaration that the United States will ``run'' Venezuela and seize its oil--was not an isolated incident; it was a culmination of a monthslong campaign built on dubious legal arguments, institutional failures, and Congress' willful abdication of our constitutional duties.

For months, my colleagues and I warned that President Trump's military campaign against the alleged drug boats was strategically incoherent and legally questionable. We warned that the massive military buildup was not about narcotics trafficking. We warned that this campaign was always directed at military action against Venezuela.

At every turn, this body had the opportunity to exercise oversight and demand accountability, and at every turn, we failed to do so. Now we must correct that failure.

President Trump began laying the foundation for this operation--all the operations in Venezuela--the moment he was sworn in. On his first day in office, he designated multiple drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Shortly thereafter, he ended temporary protected status for some 350,000 Venezuelan migrants and authorized holding some at the naval station at Guantanamo before deportation.

On March 15, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act--a wartime authority that had not been used since World War II--and declared that Tren de Aragua, or TdA, was a cartel plotting to invade and actively invading the United States as an ``invading force.'' He did this despite a National Intelligence Council assessment in April of 2025 that concluded the Venezuelan Government was not directing an invasion of the United States by TdA.

It would not be the last time President Trump disregarded the law and the facts to achieve his policy goals.

Also, by last summer, it was clear that, in addition to Secretary Hegseth, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were engaged in planning these various proposed operations, and their personal agendas converged. Their goal was ultimately to destabilize and depose Maduro and secure access to Venezuelan's oil reserves.

Over the summer and fall, the Department of Defense flowed massive military assets into the Caribbean: the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, attack submarines, P-8 Poseidon aircraft, Aegis destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, and eventually the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group. The administration never explained why this buildup was necessary other than vague references to drug interdiction. It was clear then and it is perfectly clear now that they were preparing for an attack on Venezuela.

By late summer, President Trump had signed a secret directive ordering the Pentagon to conduct maritime strikes on drug boats. Secretary Hegseth then signed an execute order, or EXORD, directing lethal military strikes against alleged drug boats. He has refused to submit that EXORD to Congress despite legal requirements for him to do so. By not following a statutory requirement to submit these EXORDs to Congress, Secretary Hegseth and the President are breaking the law.

On September 2, the U.S. military carried out its first strike, killing 11 individuals on an alleged drug boat. Additional strikes continued throughout the fall and winter, and to date, the U.S. military has conducted 35 known strikes, killing at least 120 people.

President Trump tries to justify these lethal attacks by creating a new term--``designated terrorist organization''--a term that does not exist in U.S. law or anywhere else, so far as we have been able to determine. What does exist in law--authorized by Congress--is the ``foreign terrorist organization'' designation, which authorizes legal and economic sanctions. In other words, designating a cartel as a foreign terrorist organization limits that group's financial, property, and travel interests. It does not authorize lethal military action. We have searched high and low for a designation authorized by Congress of a group that would automatically allow lethal action, and we have not found it. Congress is still waiting for the President to publicly release the legal opinion underlying these legal actions preceding the recent operation in Venezuela, Operation Absolute Resolve. They have not done so yet, although they have released the latest legal opinion.

Even more troubling is that, in the process of conducting these strikes on the alleged drug boats, the JAGs--the judge advocates general--who had to opine on the legality, did not have access to this controlling legal opinion by the Department of Justice. They didn't get access to it until November, which was long after many of these strikes took place.

The legal foundation for this campaign and the operations that President Trump engaged in became extraordinarily tenuous during the September 2 strike. According to numerous public reports, after the initial attack, two survivors were left floating on the wreckage of their boat, miles from land. The United States had complete control of the skies and waters for miles around. Yet, after monitoring these survivors on video for the better part of an hour or at least 40-some- odd minutes, the order was given to fire lethal rounds at these survivors.

Even if one accepts the President's determination that we are in an armed conflict with cartels, the Geneva Conventions still apply. Article 12 of the second Geneva Convention defines ``shipwrecked'' persons as those ``in peril at sea or in other waters from any cause.''

The U.S. Navy's ``Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations'' makes clear that ``following each naval engagement at sea, belligerents are obligated to take all possible measures to search for and rescue the shipwrecked.''

The Department of Defense's ``Law of War Manual'' states that members of the Armed Forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders, including law of war violations. It even provides a definition and an example to avoid confusion:

For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be

clearly illegal.

That is our law. That is the manual of the Department of Defense.

The administration has released a video of all of these attacks except this one, and I think it would be helpful to the public--to all of us--to make that video available.

As we all know, on January 3, this campaign reached a climax. U.S. forces conducted airstrikes to neutralize anti-aircraft systems, carried out cyber operations to shut down power in Caracas, and executed a helicopter assault

on the Presidential compound to seize Maduro and his wife. The tactical success of this mission is a testament to their capabilities and also to the incredible courage and quality of the men and women of our Armed Forces.

However, military skill is not the same as strategic wisdom. Executing a successful raid does not constitute a plan for governing a nation. Indeed, alleviating the plight and misery of the Venezuelan people appears nowhere in the administration's stated plans for the future of Venezuela.

Instead, President Trump announced that the U.S. was ``going to run the country'' and seize control of Venezuelan oil production. He stated that ``we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to.'' So the possibility of hostilities certainly still exists in the President's mind, and he expects to be involved in Venezuela for years to come. This is not really a plan; it is an aspiration. Even the experts in the oil industry suggest that it is not one that is feasible at this moment.

Under international law, the raid on January 3 violates article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The United States is bound by treaty to follow the U.N. Charter. The Constitution makes treaties part of the ``supreme law of the land,'' and the President is bound by his oath to ensure the laws are faithfully executed.

The administration, however, seems to have determined that it can ignore the supreme law of the land because it claims it was simply enforcing the law. That is wrong and cynical, and we are in a situation where the President continues to assert that we can use hostilities at any time. In fact, on January 9, he said, ``We are not afraid of boots on the ground.''

Let me, for a moment, point out another great hypocrisy that has arisen in this situation. This all began as a way to prevent drugs from reaching this country and affecting families throughout this country. The President was standing up and down, spouting about how he has gotten rid of fentanyl. Of course, fentanyl does not come out of this area of the world.

But this is one of the interesting things that happened just last night: President Trump canceled $2 billion in grants for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. These were grants intended to fund overdose prevention work in communities, to provide lifesaving reversal drugs, and to fund treatment for people with opioid addiction. These are the very programs that put people on a path toward long-term recovery to avoid deaths through drugs. The Trump administration is prepared to commit billions of dollars to attack Venezuela but will take it from those people who are suffering from drug addiction in the United States.

It is our duty to ensure that the United States engages in armed conflict only after having the approval of Congress. This body has had every opportunity up until now to demand accountability, and too many of us have refused. The President has flouted the law, and we have failed in our duty to correct it. So we must, I think, vote for this resolution. It is our responsibility. It is the oath we took, and it is the oath, tonight, that we must follow.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, for 4 months, my Democratic colleagues and I have come to the floor to warn against President Trump's military operations in South and Central America. We pointed out that his boat- strike campaign was strategically incoherent, legally questionable, and, ultimately, not about narcotrafficking at all. We have argued that the administration's shifting legal justifications, refusal to give Congress straight answers, and, in particular, the failure of the Department of Defense to provide information to Congress, which is required by law--all of these things--together with a massive military buildup, pointed toward something larger than narcotrafficking. Indeed, we warned that these actions were always directed at the government and economy of Venezuela.

That campaign has now culminated in a military raid on Caracas, the capture of Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and President Trump's extraordinary declaration that the United States will ``run'' Venezuela and seize control of its oil reserves.

Let me be very clear about something, at the outset: Nicolas Maduro is a brutal dictator who has destroyed Venezuela's economy, crushed democratic opposition, and fostered widespread corruption. He will not be missed. But this operation was not designed to restore peace in Venezuela or protect America from the ravages of drugs. Indeed, this operation is not about democracy. It is not about the suffering of the Venezuelan people. It is not even about narcotrafficking, despite the administration's killing more than 100 people in its strikes on alleged drug boats. In the President's own words, this campaign is simply about seizing Venezuela's oil and profiting from it.

The people of Venezuela have suffered extraordinary hardship under the Maduro regime. They have voted in multiple elections for new leadership and have been denied their choice through fraud and repression. After everything they have endured, the people of Venezuela deserve to choose what happens next in their country. They do not deserve to have their future dictated by President Trump, Secretary Rubio, or anyone else in Washington.

Yet that is precisely what this administration plans to do. The plan presented by the White House is to simply force the remnants of the Maduro regime to grant the United States exclusive access to Venezuelan oil or face the consequences of a blockade. That is it. That is the plan.

Not in the plan: positive change for the people of Venezuela. There is no framework for elections or democratic transition, no serious assessment of the rival political factions inside Venezuela--factions that have been waiting for precisely this moment to seize power.

I have seen no contingency plan for what happens when China, Russia, Iran, or Cuba--nations with deep economic interests in Venezuela-- decide to block or back proxy groups in a country we have just destabilized, nor have I heard any proposal for the next steps for countering narcotrafficking.

The administration's goals are aspirational at best, and aspirations are not enough when the stakes involve war and the future of millions of people.

One of the first lessons I learned as an Army officer is that hope is not a plan. Over my career, both in uniform and in the Congress, I have seen the United States hope that its military interventions abroad would succeed. I have seen regime changes, nation-building efforts, and elaborate reconstruction schemes launched with confident predictions of success, only to have them collapse when encountered with the reality on the ground.

And the reality is this: When we rely on the U.S. military as our primary tool of foreign engagement, we generally set ourselves up for failure. We have persistently misunderstood and misjudged the cultures, histories, and politics of the nations in which we have intervened because we assume military might is enough. We imagine outcomes that align with our military and economic objectives but are surprised when those outcomes fail. We consistently fail to plan for the ``day after.''

Unless the Trump administration gets serious, Venezuela will be no exception.

This isn't about our military capabilities. We have the most formidable fighting force the world has ever seen, and I am proud and, frankly, not surprised that all elements of our military worked together to successfully execute such a dangerous and difficult mission in Caracas. The skill, professionalism, and courage are beyond question of these men and women.

But military capability is not the same as strategic wisdom. The ability to achieve tactical objectives does not guarantee beneficial long-term outcomes, and executing a successful raid does not constitute a plan for governing a nation of 28 million people.

Congress exists to provide oversight and scrutiny of the executive branch, not to cheer from the sidelines. I commend our servicemen for their performance last weekend, but I am deeply concerned about the Trump administration's lack of serious planning for the next phase. That is why this War Powers Resolution is necessary.

The Constitution vests the power to authorize war in Congress, not the President. President Trump has claimed this was just a law enforcement mission. That is absurd. No matter how he describes it, the President waged war on a foreign nation without authorization, without notification to Congress, and without any explanation to the American people about what this operation will cost or what success will look like. This is a profound constitutional failure, and it must be corrected.

I hope I am wrong about these dangers ahead. I hope this administration is right, and the transition in Venezuela proceeds smoothly. I hope that the Venezuelan people embrace this outcome and see their lives improve quickly. I hope the violent factions in Venezuela choose peace over conflict. I hope the economic recovery for the people of Venezuela justifies this enormous gamble. But as I said before, hope is not enough, and history suggests we should prepare for a far more difficult reality.

The question before us is whether Congress will fulfill its constitutional duty or whether we will abdicate our responsibility and allow this President to commit American military resources, credibility, and, potentially, American lives to an open-ended entanglement without authorization or accountability.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield the floor.