Jack Reed

“I am introducing a bill to help train and hire more teachers. We have a national shortage of teachers, and fewer young people want to teach. This bill pays for teacher training, gives states grants, and covers college costs for people who agree to teach in areas that need them most. I want the Senate to pass it.”

“Mr. President, it is time for a national investment in building a strong and resilient educator workforce to ensure that all schools have the diverse, profession-ready teachers, principals, librarians, counselors, and other specialized instructional support personnel they need to support student development and academic achievement. Today, along with Senators Van Hollen and Wyden, I am introducing the Quality Educator Partnership Act to invest in a national strategy to support the educator workforce now and into the future. I am pleased that Representative Alma Adams is introducing a companion bill in the other body with Representatives Jahana Hayes and Suzanne Bonamici. We are facing a national crisis in the education profession. A 2024 report from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found that across multiple measures, regard for the teaching profession is at its lowest levels in 50 years--from prestige to interest in the field to job satisfaction. Since 2010, the decline has accelerate, with perceptions of teacher prestige falling between 20 percent and 47 percent and interest in teaching careers among high school seniors and college freshman declining nearly 50 percent. Between 2006 and 2021, the number of prospective teachers earning licenses has fallen by over 100,000. We cannot afford to neglect the educator workforce any longer. History shows that the Nation can rise to this challenge. Following the launch of Sputnik in 1957, Congress enacted the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that invested in math, science, and foreign language instruction and the teaching workforce to deliver it. With the rise of new technologies and artificial intelligence, we need that kind of effort today to ensure American students have professional educators that can teach the skills students will need to thrive in a changing environment. In February, a coalition of education organizations came together with a call to action to change the trajectory of the education profession through Federal leadership and systemic accountability, investing in innovation and sustainability, making the education profession an affordable career path, and advancing research and evidence to guide the future of learning. The Quality Educator Partnership Act is the legislative plan to answer the call to action. Our legislation calls for a comprehensive national strategy to recruit, prepare, retain, and advance high-quality educators from early childhood through secondary education led by a dedicated Office of Educator Workforce at the U.S. Department of Education. It calls for $500 million annual investment in partnerships between school districts and educator preparation programs to address local workforce needs. It includes $500 million for grants to States to design and implement educator workforce strategies. Our bill creates a new National Educator Service Corps that will cover the cost of tuition and living expenses for prospective teachers who agree to teach in high-need areas. Additionally, the Quality Educator Partnership Act calls for new investments in data collection and accountability to track the state of the educator workforce and equitable access to profession-ready educators. It also calls for new investments in research and development to prepare for the future of teaching. The Quality Educator Partnership Act reflects input from stakeholders across the field about what is needed to recruit, prepare, and support educators. To date, more than two dozen organizations have endorsed it, including the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, City Teaching Alliance, Center for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child, International Society for Transforming Education, National Association for School-University Partnerships, National Center for Teacher Residencies, InnovateEDU, National Principals Association, Council for Academic Deans of Research Education Institutions, National Association for Family, School and Community Engagement, Deans for Impact, National Association of Community College Teacher Education Programs, 1890 Universities Foundation, ETS, Thurgood Marshall College Fund, Teacher Education Council of State Colleges and Universities, National Association for Music Education, ACTFL, National Center for Learning Disabilities, AILACTE, AMLE, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Council of Teachers of English, UNCF, Teach Plus, and American Library Association. The Nation’s outlook for the future is tied to the strength of the education profession. Our economic prosperity, the health of our democracy and civic society, and our ability to meet the challenges of climate change and the information age depend on our students having access to well-prepared and supported educators who reflect the diversity of the students they serve. Today, the profession is in crisis. It is time to act. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Quality Educator Partnership Act and work with me to see that it is enacted into law.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 5 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to pass my bill to support teachers. We have a national shortage of educators, and interest in teaching has dropped sharply over the years. My bill spends money to train teachers, help pay their college costs if they work in high-need schools, and help states recruit more school staff.”

“Mr. President, it is time for a national investment in building a strong and resilient educator workforce to ensure that all schools have the diverse, profession-ready teachers, principals, librarians, counselors, and other specialized instructional support personnel they need to support student development and academic achievement. Today, along with Senators Van Hollen and Wyden, I am introducing the Quality Educator Partnership Act to invest in a national strategy to support the educator workforce now and into the future. I am pleased that Representative Alma Adams is introducing a companion bill in the other body with Representatives Jahana Hayes and Suzanne Bonamici. We are facing a national crisis in the education profession. A 2024 report from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found that across multiple measures, regard for the teaching profession is at its lowest levels in 50 years--from prestige to interest in the field to job satisfaction. Since 2010, the decline has accelerate, with perceptions of teacher prestige falling between 20 percent and 47 percent and interest in teaching careers among high school seniors and college freshman declining nearly 50 percent. Between 2006 and 2021, the number of prospective teachers earning licenses has fallen by over 100,000. We cannot afford to neglect the educator workforce any longer. History shows that the Nation can rise to this challenge. Following the launch of Sputnik in 1957, Congress enacted the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that invested in math, science, and foreign language instruction and the teaching workforce to deliver it. With the rise of new technologies and artificial intelligence, we need that kind of effort today to ensure American students have professional educators that can teach the skills students will need to thrive in a changing environment. In February, a coalition of education organizations came together with a call to action to change the trajectory of the education profession through Federal leadership and systemic accountability, investing in innovation and sustainability, making the education profession an affordable career path, and advancing research and evidence to guide the future of learning. The Quality Educator Partnership Act is the legislative plan to answer the call to action. Our legislation calls for a comprehensive national strategy to recruit, prepare, retain, and advance high-quality educators from early childhood through secondary education led by a dedicated Office of Educator Workforce at the U.S. Department of Education. It calls for $500 million annual investment in partnerships between school districts and educator preparation programs to address local workforce needs. It includes $500 million for grants to States to design and implement educator workforce strategies. Our bill creates a new National Educator Service Corps that will cover the cost of tuition and living expenses for prospective teachers who agree to teach in high-need areas. Additionally, the Quality Educator Partnership Act calls for new investments in data collection and accountability to track the state of the educator workforce and equitable access to profession-ready educators. It also calls for new investments in research and development to prepare for the future of teaching. The Quality Educator Partnership Act reflects input from stakeholders across the field about what is needed to recruit, prepare, and support educators. To date, more than two dozen organizations have endorsed it, including the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, City Teaching Alliance, Center for Reaching and Teaching the Whole Child, International Society for Transforming Education, National Association for School-University Partnerships, National Center for Teacher Residencies, InnovateEDU, National Principals Association, Council for Academic Deans of Research Education Institutions, National Association for Family, School and Community Engagement, Deans for Impact, National Association of Community College Teacher Education Programs, 1890 Universities Foundation, ETS, Thurgood Marshall College Fund, Teacher Education Council of State Colleges and Universities, National Association for Music Education, ACTFL, National Center for Learning Disabilities, AILACTE, AMLE, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Council of Teachers of English, UNCF, Teach Plus, and American Library Association. The Nation’s outlook for the future is tied to the strength of the education profession. Our economic prosperity, the health of our democracy and civic society, and our ability to meet the challenges of climate change and the information age depend on our students having access to well-prepared and supported educators who reflect the diversity of the students they serve. Today, the profession is in crisis. It is time to act. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Quality Educator Partnership Act and work with me to see that it is enacted into law. S. 5558. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a grant program to facilitate the installation of evidence- based suicide deterrents, including suicide prevention nets and barriers, on certain infrastructure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.”

“I am introducing a bill to clearly define insider trading in the law. Right now, the courts have made the rules confusing and inconsistent. This bill makes it clearly illegal to trade stocks using important secret information that was stolen, hacked, or gotten through a broken promise. It protects regular investors and makes the stock market fair.”

“Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Kim, Alsobrooks, and Blunt Rochester in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex. Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.’’ Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation’s earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager, who subsequently trades in XYZ stock. I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage. But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading. Current SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in response to questions for the record that ``following several high-profile insider trading cases, in 1988 Congress adopted the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act, but despite the statute’s name, did not define `insider trading’ because of lack of consensus of how to define it. Almost four decades later, the situation is even muddier as courts have applied the concept to various fact patterns.’’ Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st-century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.’’ Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``there is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.’’ State regulators agree too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin has stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``defining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.’’ This is precisely what my colleagues and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading. Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information. By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice have for years served to validate the public’s worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike. I would like to thank my Banking Committee colleagues for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am introducing a bill to clearly define insider trading. Right now, our laws do not define it, which confuses judges, lawyers, and regular investors. My bill will make it illegal to trade stocks using secret information that was stolen, bought with bribes, or taken unfairly.”

“Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Kim, Alsobrooks, and Blunt Rochester in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex. Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.’’ Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation’s earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager, who subsequently trades in XYZ stock. I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage. But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading. Current SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in response to questions for the record that ``following several high-profile insider trading cases, in 1988 Congress adopted the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act, but despite the statute’s name, did not define `insider trading’ because of lack of consensus of how to define it. Almost four decades later, the situation is even muddier as courts have applied the concept to various fact patterns.’’ Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st-century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.’’ Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``there is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.’’ State regulators agree too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin has stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``defining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.’’ This is precisely what my colleagues and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading. Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information. By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice have for years served to validate the public’s worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike. I would like to thank my Banking Committee colleagues for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act. S. 5323. A bill to designate a building of the Chancery of the United States in Pristina, Kosovo, as the ``Eliot L. Engel Building’’; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am introducing a bill to protect bus drivers from violent attacks. It requires protective barriers around the driver's seat on all new buses paid for with federal money.”

“Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act with my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Hawley. Our bipartisan bill will address a growing safety concern facing the transit industry: protecting the bus operators who serve as the backbone of our Nation’s public transportation system. Bus operators are being subjected to physical assaults, chemical attacks, and exposure to biohazards for simply carrying out their essential work. In my home State, a Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, RIPTA, busdriver was sprayed in the face with insecticide after asking a passenger to pay their fare. In Missouri, a Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, KCATA, busdriver was attacked with a baseball bat. In Ohio, a Central Ohio Transit Authority, COTA, busdriver was punched in the face after a passenger reached around a partial operator barrier, and in Pennsylvania, a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, SEPTA, busdriver sustained slash wounds to his face and abdomen when attacked by a passenger. The list goes on. These attacks are part of a growing nationwide trend. Indeed, assaults on transit workers have increased by more than 36 percent since 2023, with an average of 43 assaults each day in 2025. These alarming statistics underscore the urgent need to better protect the dedicated operators who keep our public transportation systems running safely every day. To address this growing crisis, the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act would require all new, federally funded buses to be equipped with protective barriers around the operator’s seat, providing bus operators with a safer and more secure workspace. These barriers are not cosmetic; they are lifesaving. They fully enclose the operator’s workstation, preventing unauthorized entry and protecting operators from physical assaults, thrown objects, chemical agents, and other dangerous hazards. while maintaining a clear line of sight so operators can safely perform their jobs. This is a simple, commonsense solution. These barriers cost between $3,000 to $7,000 per bus, yet they can mean the difference between a bus operator making it home safely at the end of the day or becoming the victim of a violent assault. I am pleased that the bill is supported by the Amalgamated Transit Union, ATU, the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, TTD, the SMART Transportation Division, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, and the Transport Workers Union of America, TWU. And in Rhode Island, the bill is supported by RIPTA and ATU Local 618. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hawley in supporting this commonsense legislation and in working to include it in the next Surface Transportation reauthorization.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I am introducing a bill to require protective barriers around bus drivers on all new, federally funded buses. Attacks on transit workers are rising across the country. These barriers will protect drivers from violence while they do their jobs.”

“Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act with my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Hawley. Our bipartisan bill will address a growing safety concern facing the transit industry: protecting the bus operators who serve as the backbone of our Nation’s public transportation system. Bus operators are being subjected to physical assaults, chemical attacks, and exposure to biohazards for simply carrying out their essential work. In my home State, a Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, RIPTA, busdriver was sprayed in the face with insecticide after asking a passenger to pay their fare. In Missouri, a Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, KCATA, busdriver was attacked with a baseball bat. In Ohio, a Central Ohio Transit Authority, COTA, busdriver was punched in the face after a passenger reached around a partial operator barrier, and in Pennsylvania, a Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, SEPTA, busdriver sustained slash wounds to his face and abdomen when attacked by a passenger. The list goes on. These attacks are part of a growing nationwide trend. Indeed, assaults on transit workers have increased by more than 36 percent since 2023, with an average of 43 assaults each day in 2025. These alarming statistics underscore the urgent need to better protect the dedicated operators who keep our public transportation systems running safely every day. To address this growing crisis, the Bus Operator Safety and Security Act would require all new, federally funded buses to be equipped with protective barriers around the operator’s seat, providing bus operators with a safer and more secure workspace. These barriers are not cosmetic; they are lifesaving. They fully enclose the operator’s workstation, preventing unauthorized entry and protecting operators from physical assaults, thrown objects, chemical agents, and other dangerous hazards. while maintaining a clear line of sight so operators can safely perform their jobs. This is a simple, commonsense solution. These barriers cost between $3,000 to $7,000 per bus, yet they can mean the difference between a bus operator making it home safely at the end of the day or becoming the victim of a violent assault. I am pleased that the bill is supported by the Amalgamated Transit Union, ATU, the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, TTD, the SMART Transportation Division, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, and the Transport Workers Union of America, TWU. And in Rhode Island, the bill is supported by RIPTA and ATU Local 618. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hawley in supporting this commonsense legislation and in working to include it in the next Surface Transportation reauthorization.”

“I am introducing a bill to approve disaster aid for states that qualify for federal help. President Trump is unfairly denying disaster aid to Democratic states, including Rhode Island after a record blizzard, while approving requests from Republican states. This bill ensures all states that meet the damage rules get the help they need, no matter who they voted for.”

“Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Disaster Relief Fairness Act, along with Senator Whitehouse. This bill would approve major disaster declarations requested under the Trump administration for incidents that meet or exceed FEMA’s damage thresholds. I wish that this bill was not needed, but it is because President Trump has chosen to block disaster assistance based on political partisanship. According to the Urban Institute, roughly 84 percent of disaster requests from States that voted for President Trump in 2024 have been approved under this administration, compared to just 42 percent from States that voted for Kamala Harris. Further, POLITOCO reported that Republican-led States have waited 39 days on average for a decision compared to the 80-day average for Democratic-led states. This winter, Rhode Island was struck by the largest blizzard in State history. Over 3 feet of snow fell on the State in a 24-hour period--the highest 1-day snowfall on record for Rhode Island. The storm hit Rhode Island with the intensity of a category 2 hurricane, with heavy winds up to 74 miles per hour. It caused widespread power outages and tragically resulted in two fatalities and hundreds of emergency room visits. Local businesses faced prolonged closures due to disruptions to transportation, utilities, and public services across the State. Following the storm, the State of Rhode Island worked with FEMA to develop a preliminary damage assessment of the storm’s impact. The assessment found over $19 million in damages, amounting to more than nine times the threshold required for a major disaster declaration. Under any other administration, this disaster declaration would have been approved on the merits, given its historic nature and FEMA’s own damage assessment. However, after months of waiting, on July 2, 2026, President Trump denied the request from Rhode Island with no explanation. On the same day Trump denied Rhode Island’s request, he also denied requests from New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts that all reportedly exceeded FEMA’s damage thresholds. Yet, that same week, he approved disaster aid for six Republican-led States. Disaster aid and helping communities recover from deadly storms should never be political. Yet President Trump’s record proves that he cannot be trusted to adjudicate disaster money fairly without invoking his own partisan biases. The Disaster Relief Fairness Act would address that problem by granting all disaster declarations requested between January 20, 2025 and January 20, 2029 that meet the Federal requirements and thresholds for assistance. This will help ensure that States and Tribes get the relief they need--regardless of who they voted for--and allow them to fully recover from disasters. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Whitehouse and me in supporting this legislation.”

“I am introducing a bill to approve disaster aid for states that meet federal damage limits. President Trump is unfairly denying disaster aid to states that voted against him, including Rhode Island after a record blizzard. This bill makes sure communities get the recovery money they qualify for, no matter who they voted for.”

“Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Disaster Relief Fairness Act, along with Senator Whitehouse. This bill would approve major disaster declarations requested under the Trump administration for incidents that meet or exceed FEMA’s damage thresholds. I wish that this bill was not needed, but it is because President Trump has chosen to block disaster assistance based on political partisanship. According to the Urban Institute, roughly 84 percent of disaster requests from States that voted for President Trump in 2024 have been approved under this administration, compared to just 42 percent from States that voted for Kamala Harris. Further, POLITOCO reported that Republican-led States have waited 39 days on average for a decision compared to the 80-day average for Democratic-led states. This winter, Rhode Island was struck by the largest blizzard in State history. Over 3 feet of snow fell on the State in a 24-hour period--the highest 1-day snowfall on record for Rhode Island. The storm hit Rhode Island with the intensity of a category 2 hurricane, with heavy winds up to 74 miles per hour. It caused widespread power outages and tragically resulted in two fatalities and hundreds of emergency room visits. Local businesses faced prolonged closures due to disruptions to transportation, utilities, and public services across the State. Following the storm, the State of Rhode Island worked with FEMA to develop a preliminary damage assessment of the storm’s impact. The assessment found over $19 million in damages, amounting to more than nine times the threshold required for a major disaster declaration. Under any other administration, this disaster declaration would have been approved on the merits, given its historic nature and FEMA’s own damage assessment. However, after months of waiting, on July 2, 2026, President Trump denied the request from Rhode Island with no explanation. On the same day Trump denied Rhode Island’s request, he also denied requests from New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts that all reportedly exceeded FEMA’s damage thresholds. Yet, that same week, he approved disaster aid for six Republican-led States. Disaster aid and helping communities recover from deadly storms should never be political. Yet President Trump’s record proves that he cannot be trusted to adjudicate disaster money fairly without invoking his own partisan biases. The Disaster Relief Fairness Act would address that problem by granting all disaster declarations requested between January 20, 2025 and January 20, 2029 that meet the Federal requirements and thresholds for assistance. This will help ensure that States and Tribes get the relief they need--regardless of who they voted for--and allow them to fully recover from disasters. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Whitehouse and me in supporting this legislation. S. 5020. A bill to require a study on manufactured homes in areas at high risk of natural hazards and weather extremes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.”