Hickenlooper, Bennet, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Bring Back Direct File, Make Taxes Easier

The Direct File Act would reverse Trump Administration decision to cancel Direct File, which was very successful when introduced

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet, along with 153 of their colleagues, introduced the Direct File Act. This legislation would reverse the Trump Administration’s decision to end the highly successful Direct File program. Before being canceled, the program allowed taxpayers to file their taxes online, for free, and directly with the government. This bill would resume the Direct File program and make it permanent.

“Returning to Direct File will make filing taxes free and easy for millions of Americans,” said Hickenlooper. “Getting rid of Direct File puts working people last.”

“The Direct File Act will ensure easy, quick, and free tax filing services remain available to Coloradans,” said Bennet. “President Trump’s decision to end this critical program comes at the expense of taxpayers across the country and only succeeds in increasing costs for Americans. Coloradans deserve a modern tax filing experience, and this legislation will ensure that this program is made permanent.”

The average American taxpayer spends eight hours and $160 each year filing their taxes with tax prep companies. In 2024, the IRS launched Direct File to save families time and money. 94% of users described their experience as “excellent” or “above average,” and more than 70% of taxpayers said they would use Direct File if they were eligible. If fully implemented, Direct File was expected to save families up to $23 billion annually in fees, time, and tax credits.

However, the Trump Administration ended the program after extensive lobbying efforts by tax companies. This decision contradicts recommendations from the independent Government Accountability Office and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. By ending this program, the Trump Administration raises costs for Americans and makes the tax filing experience even more challenging.

This bill would direct the IRS to establish and operate a free online tax preparation and filing program, the Direct File Act would also :

Prohibit the IRS from entering into agreements that restrict its ability to provide free online tax preparation or filing services.

Direct the IRS to publish an annual report on use levels, patterns of usage, and ways to improve access to Direct File.

Direct the IRS to enable seamless integration between state tax filing systems and Direct File, including through information sharing and a new grant program for states.

Reduce tax fraud by getting third-party income information to the IRS earlier in the tax season, allowing the agency to verify this information before issuing refunds.

“A free, direct e-filing tax return system is a fundamental taxpayer right,” said Nina Olson, Executive Director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights and former National Taxpayer Advocate. “Just as the government designs and printed paper tax forms for years, so should it design and maintain a user-friendly electronic filing option for individual taxpayers.”

“Americans across the country are struggling with high costs and having trouble making ends meet, so it’s especially frustrating that we no longer have the option to use the free Direct File online filing software developed by the IRS,” said Susan Harley, managing director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “The Direct File Act would put back in place this commonsense cost saving option for filers and once and for all ensure that corporations aren’t allowed to keep their stranglehold on tax filing. Public Citizen and our partners applaud Senator Warren, Representative Sherman, and their colleagues for their leadership on this critical issue.”

The bill is endorsed by 115 unions, advocacy groups, and national organizations, including Public Citizen, Americans for Tax Fairness, Economic Security Project Action, Groundwork Collaborative, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Communications Workers of America, Americans for Financial Reform, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Main Street Alliance, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, P Street, Patriotic Millionaires, Institute for Policy Studies – Program on Inequality, MoveOn, UnidosUS, 20/20 Vision, Advancing CT Together, Alliance for Retired Americans, Allons Babies, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, Colorado Fiscal Institute, Community Change Action, Demand Progress, Fair Share America, Financial Empowerment Network, Futures Without Violence, In the Public Interest, Income Movement, Jobs with Justice, LIFT Inc, MakingChange, Inc, Meals4Families, Mothers Outreach Network, My Money Story, National Association of Social Workers, National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Organization for Women, National Rural Social Work Caucus, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Oxfam America, Public Good Law Center, RootsAction, SiX Action, Social Work Grand Challenge to Reduce Extreme Economic Inequality, State Innovation Exchange, Strong Economy For All Coalition, The Arc of the United States, Touch Stones Financial Wellness Services, Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice, United for a Fair Economy, United for Respect, = Vesta Prosperity, Voices for Progress, Women Employed, and Young Invincibles.

In addition to Bennet, Hickenlooper, Warren, Coons, and Wyden, 36 Senators cosponsored the legislation, including: Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

The text of the bill is available HERE. A summary of the bill is available HERE.

###


Change those clocks: Daylight saving time begins Sunday

By J.T. Mitchell

Daylight saving time returns to most of the U.S. this weekend, which means it’s time to “spring forward” and welcome a later sunset for the next eight months.

Here’s what to know about the time change and when to change those clocks.

When does daylight saving time start?

For the 48 states that observe daylight saving time, including Mississippi, clocks will need to be set forward one hour at 2 a.m. local time on Sunday, March 8.

It’s best to set your clocks before going to sleep on Saturday night to avoid a time-blind frenzy upon waking up Sunday morning, although smart phones and other devices generally change the time automatically. Speaking of sleep, you will lose an hour of time on Saturday night, but isn’t it worth it for an extra hour of sunlight at the end of the day?

When does daylight saving time end?

Clocks will “fall back” on Sunday, Nov. 1. Each year, daylight saving time begins on the first Sunday of March and ends on the first Sunday of November.

Who observes daylight saving time?

Over 70 counties across the world participate in daylight saving time, according to timeanddate.com. All U.S. states observe daylight saving time, with Hawaii and Arizona (exempting the Navajo Nation) being the only original holdouts. Hawaii and Arizona were able to avoid the twice-annual time change by opting out of the 1966 Uniform Time Act, which regulates American time zones.

Territories American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Marina Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands do no observe daylight saving time.

Why is daylight saving time observed?

This is the million-dollar question. While some people blame farmers for the creation of daylight saving time, those in agriculture vouch it’s not them who wanted the time change.

According to the New York Times, Benjamin Franklin was credited with the idea after he realizes he was wasting mornings staying in bed. Franklin’s idea entered American government policy in 1918 to help conserve fuel and power during World War I. The U.S. followed in the footsteps of Germany (1916) in enacting daylight saving time. Even though the original goal was to cut energy costs, there are conflicting studies with some arguing it doesn’t actually do that.

Will daylight saving time soon become permanent?

Many elected officials on both the state and federal levels have voiced their disdain for the twice-annual time change, but at this point, it’s up to Congress to make the final decision. Some states have enacted trigger legislation to make daylight saving time permanent waiting on a presidential pen stroke. Mississippi enacted legislation in 2021 for year-round daylight saving time, pending congressional approval. An identical bill changing the start date to July 1, 2026, was filed this year in the Mississippi Legislature but died in committee.

On the federal level, U.S. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) has cosponsored legislation on multiple occasions that would put a stop to the clock-changing. Hyde-Smith and others in favor of making daylight saving time permanent argue it would result in more productivity and physical activity for Americans as more sunlight would be made available during waking hours.


Kaine & Tillis Lead Bipartisan Group of Senators Asking Senate Leadership to Consider National Forest Bills

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) sent a letter to Senate leadership requesting the Senate’s prompt consideration of a bipartisan package of National Forest bills that advanced unanimously out of the Senate Agriculture Committee on October 21, 2025. The bills affect public lands in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

“We write to respectfully request a process to advance a bipartisan package of National Forest bills to the President’s desk. We are grateful for the Senate Agriculture Committee’s unanimous approval of these bills this Congress, and we now ask for your help in sending them to the President’s desk to be signed into law,” wrote the senators.

“These bills are a product of years, sometimes decades, of work with local communities to strike the balance unique to each of our respective states. Each bill addresses a specific, locally important issue on our public lands, from facilitating recreational access and conservation designations to resolving land ownership technicalities,” the senators continued.

“This is an opportunity for Congress to come together to do good work for public lands, local economies, and rural communities,” the senators concluded. “We ask you to begin an effort to send a comprehensive, bipartisan package of National Forest bills to the President’s desk and we stand ready to work together to achieve long awaited results for our communities.”

In addition to Kaine and Tillis, the letter was cosigned by U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Tina Smith (D-MN), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).

The full text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Leader Thune, Leader Schumer, Chairman Boozman, and Ranking Member Klobuchar:

We write to respectfully request a process to advance a bipartisan package of National Forest bills to the President’s desk. We are grateful for the Senate Agriculture Committee’s unanimous approval of these bills this Congress, and we now ask for your help in sending them to the President’s desk to be signed into law.

At the Committee’s business meeting on October 21, 2025, a slate of public lands bills affecting nine states was approved without objection, reflecting a welcome consensus on managing our National Forest System lands. These bills are a product of years, sometimes decades, of work with local communities to strike the balance unique to each of our respective states. Each bill addresses a specific, locally important issue on our public lands, from facilitating recreational access and conservation designations to resolving land ownership technicalities. Collectively, they benefit communities in Tennessee, Virginia, Mississippi, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arkansas, Alabama, and North Carolina, showing the nationwide reach of this effort.

Facilitating the enactment of this package would enhance recreation opportunities and support local communities while serving as a shining example of a bipartisan, regular order process. This is an opportunity for Congress to come together to do good work for public lands, local economies, and rural communities.

We ask you to begin an effort to send a comprehensive, bipartisan package of National Forest bills to the President’s desk and we stand ready to work together to achieve long awaited results for our communities.

Sincerely,

###


Video: Kaine Speaks on Senate Floor to Urge Colleagues to Pass His Bipartisan War Powers Resolution to Stop Unauthorized War in Iran

FULL VIDEO OF THE SPEECH IS AVAILABLE HERE.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, spoke on the Senate floor to urge his colleagues to pass his bipartisan War Powers Resolution to stop President Donald Trump’s illegal, unnecessary war with Iran and ensure any U.S. participation in hostilities against Iran is explicitly authorized by Congress. It would not prevent the U.S. from defending itself or Israel from an Iranian attack. The bipartisan resolution is expected to be voted on in coming days.

During Kaine’s speech, he discussed the effects of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and reflected on the lessons that the U.S. should learn from these wars.

“We should not be going into a war in the Middle East or anywhere without good, solid reason that has had its tires kicked and that has demonstrated that is of a magnitude sufficient to warrant losses that could reach this scale,” said Kaine. “This President has asserted no real reason that is clear to the American public, and that’s why the American public so far is so against this.”

“The other thing is you shouldn’t go in… with no reason – and even if you have a reason, you should go in with a plan,” Kaine continued. “So what’s the plan? The President has said it would be two or three days. The President has said it would be five or six weeks. The President has said, ‘I’m not going to rule out boots on the ground.’ The President has said, ‘We will bomb until we’re done, and then Iranians, take over your government’ … That’s not a plan.”

“There’s no rationale, and there’s no plan. And without a rationale and a plan, why would we ignore the lessons of the last 25 years?” Kaine said. “I pray – just like we all do – that the consequences of Iran will not be those that I read to you earlier – the consequences of Iraq and the consequences of Afghanistan.”

“We would be foolish to stand here and say ‘we know they will not be.’ We have to have the humility to acknowledge the fact that U.S. servicemembers have already lost their lives and been injured, that we could face serious consequences in the loss and death of our troops, serious consequences in instability in the region, serious consequences in rising energy prices for Americans,” Kaine continued.

“We will have this war powers vote within the next 48 hours or so, and every member of this body will do the most solemn thing any of us ever do – vote on whether the United States should be at war … Vote on whether we want to send our own kids – our own sons and daughters, the most precious resource we have in this country – into a war that could end up like the wars we have just recently exited in the same region,” said Kaine.

“I pray so hard for my colleagues to exercise the judgement that this is not the right time for more war,” Kaine concluded. “I pray that my colleagues will support the War Powers Resolution.”

Yesterday, Kaine published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about why the U.S. Senate should pass his bipartisan War Powers Resolution. Kaine also gave a floor speech last week.

Kaine has been a leading voice against unauthorized wars during his time in the Senate. Last June, the Senate voted on a similar War Powers Resolution introduced by Kaine to prevent the use of military force against Iran unless explicitly authorized by Congress. The June resolution gained bipartisan support but did not receive enough votes to advance. In January, Kaine forced a vote on his bipartisan War Powers Resolution on Venezuela, which gained enough Republican support to advance but was then sidestepped by Republican leadership to avoid losing further votes.

###


Warner, Kaine Press Department of Education on Decision to Limit Student Loans to Health Care Workers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, (both D-VA) sent a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon pressing her on the Department of Education’s decision to propose student financial aid provisions that alter the definition of “professional degree” to only include doctorate-level degrees. This rule would limit the amount that many health care workers who require long, costly programs for professional licensure could borrow. At a time when Virginia – like the rest of the country – is facing a health care workforce crisis and is in need of tens of thousands of health care workers, this cap on student loan borrowing does not reflect the needs of the health care system.

“We write to raise concern over the Department of Education’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the student financial aid provisions included in Public Law 119-21, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. While we have broad concerns regarding the elimination of the Federal Direct Grad PLUS loan program and the implementation of new annual and lifetime student loan limits in Public Law 119-21, we write today with concern specifically regarding the proposal to exclude certain critical post-baccalaureate health care degrees from the regulatory definition of ‘professional degree.’ This decision caps student loan borrowing limits for these professionals at a lower threshold than those included in the proposed definition at a time when Virginia and our country face a health care workforce crisis that worsens by the day. We urge you to recognize this health emergency and broaden the definition of ‘professional degree’ to ensure it reflects the reality of our health care system and doesn’t worsen a crisis that already exists in all corners of our country,” wrote the senators.

Republicans’ budget megabill, which was passed last year without a single Democratic vote, states that students earning “professional degrees” may borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 aggregate in student loans, yet those earning “graduate degrees” are subject to borrowing limits of $20,500 annually and $100,000 aggregate. Under this law and the Department of Education’s proposed interpretation of the term “professional degree,” student financial aid would be limited for advanced practice registered nurses, registered nurses, physician assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, social workers, and more, despite the expertise of these health care workers being just as critical as the expertise of doctors and dentists.

The senators stressed, “Virginia, consistent with trends nationwide, is facing historic ongoing health care workforce shortages. As of July 2024, all 133 localities in Virgina are federally designated as behavioral health shortage areas and 96 localities are designated as primary care shortage areas, with 44% of neighborhoods lacking acceptable access to primary care services. According to a study by George Mason University’s Center for Health Workforce, Virginia is in need of over 17,000 more registered nurses, 3,700 more physical therapists, and 2,400 more mental health and substance use disorder social workers to meet the health care needs of our constituents. If current trends persist, these shortages in the nursing, primary care, and behavioral health workforce are set to increase in Virginia. This problem is not unique to our Commonwealth; nationwide, it is projected that 1.2 million new nurses will be needed by 2030 to address existing health care workforce shortages.”

Every county in Southwest Virginia, with the exception of Pulaski, Montgomery, and Roanoke counties, is a designated Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA). The region needs more than 860 nurses, 200 physical therapists, and 130 postsecondary health specialties teachers. Additionally, Hampton Roads need more than 2,800 nurses, 934 physical therapists, 437 mental health and substance use disorder social workers, and 131 postsecondary health specialties teachers. Central Virginia also needs more than 800 nurses.

“Cutting off access to adequate federal loan amounts will needlessly exacerbate the rapidly worsening workforce crisis impacting Virginians and Americans across the country. Furthermore, there is no evidence that individuals in certain professions default more often than those in other professions, raising the question of why there is the need to limit borrowing by profession. In fact, the degrees being excluded from the RISE Committee’s definition of ‘professional degree’ are amongst some of the fastest growing jobs in the country. Average job growth is projected to be 3 percent in the next ten years; in contrast, job growth is projected to be 11 percent for physical therapists and audiologists, 14 percent for occupational therapists, 19 percent for speech-language pathologists, 20 percent for physician assistants, and over 40 percent for advanced nursing degree jobs. Now is the time to bolster support for individuals training to enter our health care workforce, not make it harder for them to afford to pursue degrees in nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and other key health care professions desperately needed in our communities,” the senators added.

Warner and Kaine concluded the letter by urging the Department of Education to expand the definition of “professional degree” to include a more comprehensive list of post-baccalaureate health care degrees. If health care professionals and trainees are blocked access to necessary financial support, Virginia and the nation’s health care workforce crisis will only worsen.

During a recent roundtable at Virginia Health Catalyst in Glen Allen, Sen. Warner heard directly from Virginians, health care providers, and stakeholders about the health care workforce crisis and the added stress that this new student financial aid provision will place on the health care system.

This letter is endorsed by the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) Virginia, National Association of Hispanic Nurses DC Metro Chapter, Philippine Nurses Association of Virginia Inc (PNAVA), Society of Southeastern Virginia Oncology Nursing Society (SEVONS), The Speech Language Hearing Association of Virginia, Urologic Nurses and Associates Chapter 111 (SUNA), UVA Health, Virginia Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists (VaCNS), Virginia Association of Colleges of Nursing (VACN), Virginia Association of Nurse Anesthesiologists, Virginia Council of Nurse Practitioners, Virginia Nurses Association, and Virginia Occupational Therapy Association.

“As we consider the critical healthcare needs of our Commonwealth and country, APTA Virginia is deeply concerned by the Department of Education's proposed rule to exclude the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) from the ‘professional degree’ classification. At a time when our profession is facing a 9.5% vacancy rate in outpatient physical therapy, nearly double the national average of vacancies in other professions, limiting the financial resources for these doctoral students will exacerbate our provider shortages, increase patient wait times, and decrease patient outcomes. If the DPT were to be classified as a professional degree with a $50,000 annual limit, 90% of our nation's programs can continue training the workforce we desperately need,” said APTA Virginia President Emily J. Hawkins, PT, DPT, PhD.

“The Speech-Language-Hearing Association of Virginia joins our state legislators and health care partners in expressing strong support for expanding access to federal financial aid and loan programs for students pursuing degrees in health care professions. Speech-language pathologists and audiologists are vital members of Virginia’s health care system—supporting individuals across the lifespan with communication, hearing, and swallowing needs—yet both professions face growing difficulties in recruitment and retention due to educational costs and limited loan access. Ensuring equitable access to federal financial support for these programs is essential to rebuilding and sustaining Virginia’s health care workforce—and to safeguarding the communication health of our communities,” said Melanie-Joy H. Dorn MA CCC-SLP , Vice President of Professional and Government Affairs for The Speech Language Hearing Association.

“UVA Health is grateful for Sens. Warner and Kaine’s support in urging the Department of Education to broaden the types of health care professions eligible for higher federal loan limits. As one of the Commonwealth’s major education and training sites for the next generation of health care professionals, UVA Health believes failing to recognize this larger advance-trained and interprofessional healthcare workforce structure risks undermining both the future availability of qualified healthcare providers and broader long-term healthcare system viability,” said Mitchell H. Rosner, MD, MACP, FRCP, CEO of UVA Health and Executive Vice President for Health Affairs for the University of Virginia.

“Excluding advanced practice registered nursing programs from the Department of Education’s list of professional degrees would further disadvantage already underfunded nursing programs, strain faculty capacity, and make advanced education less attainable - particularly for the lifelong learners who advance through every level of nursing and pursue terminal degrees while balancing other responsibilities outside of advancing their education. While we support fiscally responsible policies that make healthcare education more affordable across all disciplines, this proposal would have the opposite effect on advanced practice nursing and ultimately limit Virginians’ access to care. We urge the Department to reverse this exclusion,” said Dr. Alysia E. Pack, President, Virginia Council of Nurse Practitioners.

“The Virginia Nurses Association urges that graduate nursing programs be included in the federal ‘professional degree’ category so that students pursuing advanced nursing degrees are eligible for the full $200,000 loan cap. Ensuring equitable access to these loan opportunities is essential to sustaining the pipeline of advanced practice registered nurses, nurse leaders, and nurse faculty. Excluding graduate nursing students from this category would limit opportunities for those seeking to serve in these critical roles and, over time, weaken the nursing workforce that supports the health of every community in the Commonwealth,” said Virginia Nurses Association Chief Executive Officer Lindsey Cardwell, MSN, RN, NPD-BC.

"The Virginia Occupational Therapy Association shares Senator Warner’s concern that excluding occupational therapy from the definition of a professional degree will worsen workforce shortages and limit patient access to essential services. Occupational therapists are graduate-educated, licensed healthcare providers who support Virginians of all ages and abilities in participating in daily life activities, including essential personal care tasks, education, work, and health management. Occupational therapy plays a critical role in improving outcomes and reducing reliance on more costly levels of care. Maintaining equitable access to federal student loan support is essential to preparing the next generation of providers that Virginia’s health system and communities depend on," said Savannah Howe, President of the Virginia Occupational Therapy Association.

Read the full letter here or below.

Dear Secretary McMahon:

We write to raise concern over the Department of Education’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the student financial aid provisions included in Public Law 119-21, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. While we have broad concerns regarding the elimination of the Federal Direct Grad PLUS loan program and the implementation of new annual and lifetime student loan limits in Public Law 119-21, we write today with concern specifically regarding the proposal to exclude certain critical post-baccalaureate health care degrees from the regulatory definition of “professional degree.” This decision caps student loan borrowing limits for these professionals at a lower threshold than those included in the proposed definition at a time when Virginia and our country face a health care workforce crisis that worsens by the day. We urge you to recognize this health emergency and broaden the definition of “professional degree” to ensure it reflects the reality of our health care system and doesn’t worsen a crisis that already exists in all corners of our country.

As you know, Public Law 119-21 states that students earning defined “professional degrees” may borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 aggregate in student loans. In contrast, students earning “graduate degrees” under P.L. 119-21 definition are subject to borrowing limits of only $20,500 annually and $100,000 aggregate. Current regulations include a number of examples of professional health care degrees: Pharmacy (PharmD), Dentistry (DDS or DMD), Medicine (MD/DO), Optometry (OD), Podiatry (DPM), Chiropractic (DC). These regulations also say the definition includes the above but should not be considered an exhaustive list.

During the negotiated rulemaking process completed in November 2025, the RISE Committee proposed a definition of “professional degree” that is inconsistent with the realities of the health care workforce. On January 30, 2026, the Department of Education formally released the NPRM on the proposed change. Our health care system relies on the specialized training and expertise of so many provider types, including ones practicing independently. By focusing on doctoral-level degrees, the Department’s interpretation of the term “professional degree” leaves out advanced practice registered nurses, registered nurses, physician assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, social workers, and other degrees requiring lengthy, costly programs for professional licensure. In addition, their training is not generally considered a stepping stone for further training, and their expertise is no less critical in our health care system than those of doctors and dentists.

Virginia, consistent with trends nationwide, is facing historic ongoing health care workforce shortages. As of July 2024, all 133 localities in Virgina are federally designated as behavioral health shortage areas and 96 localities are designated as primary care shortage areas, with 44% of neighborhoods lacking acceptable access to primary care services.[1],[2] According to a study by George Mason University’s Center for Health Workforce, Virginia is in need of over 17,000 more registered nurses, 3,700 more physical therapists, and 2,400 more mental health and substance use disorder social workers to meet the health care needs of our constituents.[3] If current trends persist, these shortages in the nursing, primary care, and behavioral health workforce are set to increase in Virginia.[4] This problem is not unique to our Commonwealth; nationwide, it is projected that 1.2 million new nurses will be needed by 2030 to address existing health care workforce shortages.[5]

Cutting off access to adequate federal loan amounts will needlessly exacerbate the rapidly worsening workforce crisis impacting Virginians and Americans across the country. Furthermore, there is no evidence that individuals in certain professions default more often than those in other professions, raising the question of why there is the need to limit borrowing by profession.[6] In fact, the degrees being excluded from the RISE Committee’s definition of “professional degree” are amongst some of the fastest growing jobs in the country. Average job growth is projected to be 3 percent in the next ten years; in contrast, job growth is projected to be 11 percent for physical therapists and audiologists, 14 percent for occupational therapists, 19 percent for speech-language pathologists, 20 percent for physician assistants, and over 40 percent for advanced nursing degree jobs.[7] Now is the time to bolster support for individuals training to enter our health care workforce, not make it harder for them to afford to pursue degrees in nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and other key health care professions desperately needed in our communities.

We strongly urge the Department of Education to further expand the definition of “professional program” to include a more comprehensive list of programs. The health care workforce disaster will only worsen if our health care professionals and trainees are blocked from access to necessary financial support. Nurses, speech and language pathologists, physician assistants, and other health providers are paramount to keeping our system afloat. It is critical that all post-baccalaureate health care degrees are equally protected to the greatest extent possible from the negative impacts of Public Law 119-21.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and we look forward to your response.

###

[1] Joint Commission on Health Care. (2025). 2024 annual report. Commonwealth of Virginia. https://jchc.virginia.gov/documents/JCHC%202024%20Annual%20Report.pdf

[2] Shadowen, H. M., Gilbert, J. L., Webel, B., Funk, A., Lee, J. H., Strayer, S. M., Sabo, R. T., Walker, L. S., Topmiller, M., Mitchell, A., Britz, J. B., Barnes, A. J., & Krist, A. H. (2025). Neighborhood determinants of primary care access in Virginia. Annals of Family Medicine, 23(3), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.240331

[3] Cline, N. (2025, September 22). Leaders gather to address Virginia’s severe health care workforce shortage. Virginia Mercury. https://virginiamercury.com/2025/09/22/leaders-gather-to-address-virginias-severe-health-care-workforce-shortage/

[4] Andrew, M., Briscombe, B., Vardavas, R., Wolters, N., Qureshi, N., Nham, W., & Abir, M. (2024). Identifying strategies for strengthening the health care workforce in the Commonwealth of Virginia. RAND Health Quarterly, 11(2), 1–?. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2903-1.html

[5] Abooali, S. (2022). The nursing shortage and its consequences in rural Virginia (Policy Brief). Virginia Department of Health. https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/76/2022/12/Policy-Brief-The-Nursing-Shortage-and-its-Consequences-in-Rural-Virginia-final.pdf

[6] The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2024, March 1). Who experiences default? https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2024/who-experiences-default

[7] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Employment projections. https://www.bls.gov/emp/


Klobuchar Receives Answering the Call Award from National 9-1-1 Association

National Emergency Number Association (NENA) CEO John Provenzano and Senator Klobuchar with the Answering the Call Award.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, co-chair of the NextGen 9-1-1 Caucus, was honored with this year’s Answering the Call Award from the National Emergency Number Association. Senator Marsha Blackburn was honored as the other recipient of the award for this year.

“Our 9-1-1 professionals answer the call of duty every single day and it’s our duty to give them the tools they need to do their jobs,” said Klobuchar. “In a crisis, no one should be put in danger because of outdated 9-1-1 systems, and first responders, public safety officials, and law enforcement must be able to communicate seamlessly. I will never stop fighting to make sure that all our public safety workers— including 9-1-1 operators—have the support they need to keep us safe.”

Klobuchar has long championed efforts to support first responders and modernize our 9-1-1 system.

In September, Klobuchar and Blackburn’s bipartisan Enhancing First Response Act passed the Senate. The bill would make important updates to our 9-1-1 emergency reporting system to improve Americans’ ability to reach help when they dial 9-1-1, including during natural disasters.

The bill will also reclassify 9-1-1 dispatchers as protective service workers, ensuring their job classification appropriately recognizes the lifesaving nature of their work.

Specifically, the Enhancing First Response Act would:

Require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to issue a report after major natural disasters on the extent to which people were unable to reach 9-1-1 during the disaster and subsequent recovery efforts, and make recommendations to improve the resiliency of 9-1-1 systems to prevent future service disruptions;

Require the FCC to study the unreported 9-1-1 outages and develop recommendations to improve outage reporting and communication between mobile carriers experiencing network outages and 9-1-1 centers;

Update the classification of 9-1-1 dispatchers from clerical workers to protective service workers in the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) to better reflect the life-saving work they perform each day. The SOC is a tool used by federal agencies to classify the workforce into useful, occupational categories; and

Require the FCC to report on the extent to which multi-line telephone system manufacturers and vendors have complied with Kari’s Law, which Senator Klobuchar worked to pass into law in 2018 to require the manufacturers of multi-line telephone systems to create systems that allow callers to reach 9-1-1 without dialing a prefix or postfix.

###


SENATORS MCCORMICK AND WELCH INTRODUCE BILL TO MODERNIZE AMERICA’S ELECTRIC GRID AND CUT RED TAPE

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA), Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy, and Peter Welch (D-VT), Chair of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development Energy, and Credit, today introduced the Reconductoring Existing Wires for Infrastructure Reliability and Expansion (REWIRE) Act of 2026, new bipartisan legislation to modernize the nation’s electric grid and meet America’s growing energy demand. This bill cuts permitting delays, incentivizes advanced transmission upgrades, strengthens state grid planning, and accelerates the deployment of innovative grid technologies to lower costs and improve grid reliability for American families and businesses.

“Electricity demand in Pennsylvania and across America is rising rapidly and that requires innovative solutions to strengthen our electric grid and cut through the bureaucracy that is holding us back,” said Senator McCormick. “The bipartisan REWIRE Act is exactly the kind of commonsense fix we need. It leverages existing infrastructure we already have, brings down costs, and stops years of unnecessary permitting delays from standing in the way of real progress.”

“We’re up against the clock when it comes to meeting America’s growing energy needs. Increasing the capacity of the grid by accelerating the permitting process and incentivizing practices like reconductoring will not only allow us to connect new and affordable clean energy to the grid–it’ll also save consumers money,” said Senator Welch. “I’m proud to partner with Senator McCormick on this bipartisan effort to upgrade America’s grid and meet the energy demand of the future.”

After two decades of stagnation, American electricity demand is projected to rise by as much as 5.7% by 2030 — the fastest increase since the 1960s. Meeting this demand will require nearly 5,000 miles of new high-capacity transmission lines each year, according to the Department of Energy. Yet in 2024, only 322 miles of new high-voltage transmission were completed.

The REWIRE Act provides a commonsense path forward: rather than building new infrastructure from scratch, it upgrades existing transmission lines with advanced conductors that can double capacity (a process known as “reconductoring”). By reducing congestion and bypassing lengthy permitting requirements, reconductoring could reduce grid costs by $85 billion by 2035 and $180 billion by 2050.

Specifically, the REWIRE Act of 2026 will:

Streamline environmental reviews by creating a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for projects that increase grid capacity within existing rights-of-way, including reconductoring with advanced conductors, deploying grid-enhancing technologies (GETs), and deploying energy storage.

Incentivize modern transmission upgrades by directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to improve the return on equity for reconductoring projects, encouraging wider adoption of advanced transmission conductors.

Expand funding flexibility by allowing State Energy Offices to use Department of Energy (DOE) State Energy Program funds to conduct feasibility studies for reconductoring and GETs projects.

Build a regional knowledge network by establishing regional collaboratives between DOE, National Laboratories, and universities to evaluate grid performance and identify high-impact opportunities for advanced conductor and GET deployment.

Share best practices nationally by authorizing DOE to assist transmission developers and create a national clearinghouse of advanced transmission technology applications, case studies, and best practices.

Read the full bill text here.

“We welcome the bipartisan leadership of Senators McCormick and Welch to address the urgent need for reliable and affordable power for Pennsylvanians and communities across the country through this critical legislation,” said Joe Mastrangelo, Chief Executive Officer of Eos Energy. “As energy demand continues to rise, Eos stands ready to deliver American‑made energy storage solutions that improve efficiency, accelerate speed‑to‑power, and enhance affordability for ratepayers—goals the REWIRE Act is designed to advance.”

“We are grateful to Senator McCormick for his bipartisan leadership on the REWIRE Act. As electricity demand continues to rise, it is critical that we strengthen and modernize the nation’s linear infrastructure. Targeted, commonsense permitting reforms that allow upgrades within existing rights-of-way can help unlock additional grid capacity more efficiently and cost-effectively. This proposal addresses one component of a broader permitting challenge, and while there is more work to do, we support all pragmatic efforts that streamline unnecessarily burdensome processes and accelerate the delivery of reliable energy to the markets where it is needed most.” – Toby Z. Rice, President and CEO, EQT

“Thank you to Senator McCormick for introducing the REWIRE Act. This is an important step forward on comprehensive permitting reform, a long-standing priority of our members,”said Stefani Pashman, CEO of the Allegheny Conference. “This region has been a top energy producer for our nation for generations. REWIRE would ensure the power we produce can get to where it’s needed most without unnecessary delays. As we position for future growth, these reforms will allow us to capitalize on an ‘all of the above’ energy approach when it comes to leveraging the region’s assets, expertise, and emerging opportunities for the 10-county SWPA region.”

“America needs a smarter, stronger grid to promote American energy security, AI leadership, and manufacturing competitiveness. The REWIRE Act, introduced by Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Peter Welch (D-VT), positions the U.S. to optimize our existing grid through American innovation – delivering more power with greater efficiency and affordability to American homes and businesses. We commend these bipartisan efforts to streamline the permitting for and industry adoption of innovative grid technologies that let American energy move,” said ClearPath Action CEO Jeremy Harrell.

“PPL is building the utilities of the future by deploying advanced technologies across our grid. In 2022, PPL Electric Utilities became the first U.S. electric utility to fully integrate dynamic line ratings—a grid‑enhancing technology—into real‑time operations with PJM. While not a substitute for needed new transmission, GETs can unlock additional capacity from existing infrastructure, improve efficiency, and reduce congestion costs for customers. We applaud Senator McCormick’s leadership in introducing the REWIRE Act and welcome continued collaboration with our federal partners to help scale proven solutions nationwide for the benefit of our customers.”– Vincent Sorgi, president and chief executive officer of PPL Corporation

“ACC Action, on behalf of our thousands of grassroots members, is happy to endorse Senator McCormick’s REWIRE Act. This bill will allow us to get more electricity out of existing infrastructure without wasting years on redundant environmental approvals. The federal government should not be spending time and money on thousands of pages of reports for land that has already been developed. By doubling down on existing transmission infrastructure, we can save pristine lands, protect farmland, and prevent duplicative construction across the country.” – American Conservation Coalition Action (ACC Action)

“The electric industry is facing unprecedented challenges. In order to keep up with increasing demand while still maintaining affordable and reliable service, utilities need to have access to every tool in the toolbox. This legislation would help utilities increase capacity along existing transmission corridors and do so quickly while reducing costs. I applaud Sen. McCormick and Sen. Welch for working in a bipartisan manner to address these critical infrastructure issues and I urge the Senate to take up this legislation.”– Steve Brame, President & CEO, Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association and Allegheny Electric Cooperative

“Advanced transmission technologies, including high-performance conductors and grid-enhancing technologies, are a common-sense way to increase the overall capacity and efficiency of our existing grid infrastructure, boost reliability, and lower energy prices. We applaud Sens. Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Peter Welch (D-VT) for the introduction of the REWIRE Act, which would aid in the deployment of these next-generation grid technologies,” said Michele Stockwell, president of Bipartisan Policy Center Action (BPC Action).

“Rising electricity demand related to reindustrialization, electrification, and U.S. leadership in AI is one of the most pressing issues facing policymakers today,” said Securing America’s Future Energy CEO Avery Ash. “The REWIRE Act charts a decisive path to expand the capacity of our electric grid, fortifying America’s national security and economic strength. It recognizes that scaling advanced transmission technologies and deploying energy storage are essential tools to unlock that capacity, delivering results now as we build the grid of the future.”

“At a time when families and businesses are facing rising electricity costs, the REWIRE Act offers a market-driven solution to expand grid capacity at lower cost. By enabling advanced conductors and grid-enhancing technologies within existing rights-of-way, this legislation can reduce congestion, improve efficiency, and help keep rates stable. Smart infrastructure upgrades are a win for reliability and a win for ratepayers.” – John Szoka, CEO of the Conservative Energy Network

“Grid reliability and affordability depend on faster, common-sense upgrades. FAI Action applauds Senators Welch and McCormick for introducing the REWIRE Act and supports this effort to accelerate grid development in existing corridors.” – Foundation for American Innovation

“Modernizing the electric grid is essential to keeping America competitive. The REWIRE Act takes bipartisan steps to cut red tape and accelerate capacity additions on existing infrastructure, including reconductoring, grid-enhancing technologies, and storage,”said NEMA Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Spencer Pederson. “This bill helps move more energy faster along existing corridors without sacrificing responsible oversight, and it’s a commonsense, near-term way to add capacity and strengthen reliability.”

###


Merkley, Wicker, Kiggans, Bonamici, 150+ Lawmakers: Changes to Nursing Student Loans Threaten Profession

Washington, D.C. – Today, Oregon’s U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley and Mississippi’s U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, along with U.S. Representatives Jen Kiggans (R-VA-02) and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-01), led a bipartisan group of over 150 lawmakers in calling for the U.S. Department of Education to not make changes to post-baccalaureate nursing degrees that would saddle nurses with more student loan debt.

The lawmakers submitted public comment in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking from the U.S. Department of Education regarding changes to federal student loan programs that declassifies nursing degrees as “professional” and puts them in the same category as “graduate degrees.”

“We write with disappointment over the Department’s decision to omit post-baccalaureate nursing degrees from the regulatory definition of ‘professional degree,’” the bipartisan group of 160 lawmakers wrote. “This will make it harder for nursing students to access the loans that they need.”

“Nurses and nurse faculty make up the backbone of our health system, and post-baccalaureate nursing degrees lead to demonstrated outcomes,” the lawmakers continued. “As such, post-baccalaureate nursing degrees should be treated equally to other accredited post-baccalaureate health profession degrees.”

The lawmakers’ comment outlines their concerns over the rule’s omission of post-baccalaureate nursing degrees from the regulatory definition of “professional degree,” meaning they would be classified as a “graduate degree.” If this omission is adopted during this rulemaking, the proposed definition threatens more debt for post-baccalaureate nursing students, as student loans are currently capped for new borrowers at $20,500 annually and $100,000 in the aggregate for “graduate” programs and $50,000 annually and $200,000 in the aggregate for “professional” programs.

As leaders of the Senate and House Nursing Caucuses, Merkley, Wicker, Kiggans, and Bonamici have championed bipartisan efforts to support the more than 5 million registered nurses across the United States and address the challenges facing the nursing workforce. Merkley is the husband of a nurse, and Kiggans is one of three nurses currently serving in Congress.

The bipartisan public comment is supported by 60 organizations, including the American Association of Colleges of Nursing; American Association of Nurse Practitioners; American Nurses Association; American College of Nurse-Midwives; Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses; National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners; National Council of State Boards of Nursing; and the National League for Nursing. A full list of supporting organizations can be found by clicking here.

In addition to Merkley, Wicker, Kiggans, and Bonamici, the comment submitted to the Department of Education was signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Christopher Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Adam B. Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Raphael G. Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR), as well as U.S. Representatives Alma Adams (D-NC-12), Gabe Amo (D-RI-01), Nanette Barragán (D-CA-44), Jack Bergman (R-MI-01), Sanford Bishop (D-GA-02), Robert Bresnahan (R-PA-08), Julia Brownley (D-CA-26), Janelle Bynum (D-OR-05), Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24), Greg Casar (D-TX-35), Ed Case (D-HI-01), Kathy Castor (D-FL-14), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL-20), Judy Chu (D-CA-28), Gilbert Cisneros (D-CA-31), Yvette Clarke (D-NY-09), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-05), Steve Cohen (D-TN-09), Jim Costa (D-CA-21), Joe Courtney (D-CT-02), Angie Craig (D-MN-02), Jasmine Crockett (D-TX-30), Sharice Davids (D-KS-03), Danny Davis (D-IL-07), Madeleine Dean (D-PA-04), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03), Suzan DelBene (D-WA-01), Christopher Deluzio (D-PA-17), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-10), Maxine Dexter (D-OR-03), Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX-37), Sarah Elfreth (D-MD-03), Dwight Evans (D-PA-03), Cleo Fields (D-LA-06), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01), Bill Foster (D-IL-11), Valerie Foushee (D-NC-04), Laura Friedman (D-CA-30), John Garamendi (D-CA-08), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY-02), Daniel Goldman (D-NY-10), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH-02), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ-05), Al Green (D-TX-09), Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ-07), Michael Guest (R-MS-03), Jahana Hayes (D-CT-05), James Himes (D-CT-04), Val Hoyle (D-OR-04), Jared Huffman (D-CA-02), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-07), David Joyce (R-OH-14), Robin Kelly (D-IL-02), Greg Landsman (D-OH-01), Rick Larsen (D-WA-02), John Larson (D-CT-01), Michael Lawler (R-NY-17), Summer Lee (D-PA-12), Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM-03), Ted Lieu (D-CA-36), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-18), Stephen Lynch (D-MA-08), Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA-07), Seth Magaziner (D-RI-02), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY-11), Lucy McBath (D-GA-06), Sarah McBride (D-DE-At Large), Jennifer McClellan (D-VA-04), Betty McCollum (D-MN-04), Richard McCormick (R-GA-07), Morgan McGarvey (D-KY-03), James McGovern (D-MA-02), Grace Meng (D-NY-06), Dave Min (D-CA-47), Joseph Morelle (D-NY-25), Kelly Morrison (D-MN-03), Seth Moulton (D-MA-06), James Moylan (R-GU-Delegate), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-12), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-Delegate), Johnny Olszewski (D-MD-02), Ilhan Omar (D-MN-05), Frank Pallone (D-NJ-06), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), Chris Pappas (D-NH-01), Scott Peters (D-CA-50), Brittany Pettersen (D-CO-07), Chellie Pingree (D-ME-01), Mark Pocan (D-WI-02), Delia Ramirez (D-IL-03), Emily Randall (D-WA-06), Jamie Raskin (D-MD-08), John Rutherford (R-FL-05), Andrea Salinas (D-OR-06), Linda Sánchez (D-CA-38), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA-05), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL-09), Kim Schrier (D-WA-08), Terri Sewell (D-AL-07), Eric Sorensen (D-IL-17), Darren Soto (D-FL-09), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM-01), Haley Stevens (D-MI-11), Marilyn Strickland (D-WA-10), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA-10), Thomas Suozzi (D-NY-03), Eric Swalwell (D-CA-14), Shri Thanedar (D-MI-13), Bennie Thompson (D-MS-02), Mike Thompson (D-CA-04), Dina Titus (D-NV-01), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-12), Jill Tokuda (D-HI-02), Ritchie Torres (D-NY-15), Lauren Underwood (D-IL-14), Derrick Van Orden (R-WI-03), Marc Veasey (D-TX-33), James Walkinshaw (D-VA-11), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-25), and Frederica Wilson (D-FL-24).

Full text of their bipartisan comment can be found by clicking HERE and follows below:

Dear Under Secretary Kent:

We write regarding the Department of Education’s notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the student financial aid provisions included in Public Law 119–21. As Members of Congress who have championed legislation to strengthen the nursing workforce, we write with disappointment over the Department’s decision to omit post-baccalaureate nursing degrees from the regulatory definition of “professional degree.” As such, we strongly urge you to categorize all post-baccalaureate nursing degrees (MSN, DNP, PhD) as “professional degrees.”

Nurses comprise the largest health care workforce in the United States, with more than 5 million registered nurses nationwide, including over 500,000 advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). Nurses provide high-quality care to patients in all communities, including rural and urban areas, yet we are in the midst of a nursing workforce crisis in this country. According to the 2024 National Nursing Workforce Study, more than 138,000 nurses have left the workforce since 2022 due to stress, burnout, and retirement, and by 2029, almost 40 percent of nurses intend to leave the workforce. Post-baccalaureate prepared nurses are essential for patients to have access to high-quality health care in the United States, and for educating and providing clinical training for the next generation of nursing students. Given this trend, we have a strong interest in bolstering the nursing workforce, and the nursing faculty that educate them. This support extends to legislation and regulations that will make it easier for nurses to enter the field.

The Department’s interpretation of the term “professional degree” will make it more difficult for nurses to join the health care workforce because the Department explicitly said that a Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) or a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) would not satisfy the “professional degree” definition. This will make it harder for nursing students to access the loans that they need. Moreover, it is important to note that the original regulation cited by Congress, which the Department recognizes, describes a professional degree as a degree that “signifies both completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession and a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor’s degree.” That regulation also states that “professional licensure is also generally required.” Post-baccalaureate nursing degrees satisfy these criteria, as all APRNs must have a graduate degree, such as an MSN or a DNP, and require national certification and state licensure to practice.

The Department also omits nursing from its definition of a “professional degree” due to its troubling explanation that degrees that may be required under state law to have a supervisory agreement or relationship with another licensed professional cannot be professional degrees. However, this particular characterization goes far beyond how professional students are defined in § 685.102 and the definition of “professional degree” in § 668.2 as intended by Congress. According to that definition, students must possess “a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor’s degree.” These qualifications are clearly satisfied by an MSN, a DNP, a PhD in nursing. The additional limits the proposed rule places on health professionals are arbitrary and unprecedented.

Furthermore, this new proposed limit to exclude professions that may be required under state law to have a supervisory agreement or relationship with another provider was never part of discussions by the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee. Similarly, when defining the term “professional student,” the text of H.R. 1 pointed to “section 668.2 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph).” That regulation gives specific examples of a professional degree but explicitly says that those examples “include but are not limited to” a list of professions. Congress specifically pointed to a broader regulation, but the Department has circumvented the text of H.R. 1 by including a fixed list of degrees rather than a larger group or a recognition that these examples “include but are not limited to,” as Congress intended.

Post-baccalaureate nursing students also have a demonstrated need to access the higher borrowing limits for professional degrees set in Public Law 119–21. The law states that students earning professional degrees may borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 aggregate, in contrast to students earning graduate degrees, whose borrowing limits are capped at $20,500 annually and $100,000 aggregate. In a recent survey on the impact of federal loan limits on post-baccalaureate nursing education, 81% of nursing students surveyed indicated that the $100,000 aggregate federal loan cap will negatively impact their ability to finance their education.

Similarly, the current graduate level loan cap would not meet the need of most Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) programs, which can cost over $200,000, thereby restricting the pipeline of CRNAs and further limiting an anesthesia workforce that is suffering from shortages across all provider types. For example, a recent survey of nurses showed that 75% of those surveyed reported that CRNA education would no longer be financially feasible under the new loan caps. CRNA programs have shown to be a critical return on investment, with default rates near zero percent, and a workforce that overwhelmingly provides anesthesia to rural and underserved communities where higher cost physicians do not practice.

In addition, many post-baccalaureate nursing programs hit the annual limit of $20,500, including some programs that may be under the aggregate limit. For instance, many nurse practitioner and other post-baccalaureate academic programs operate year-round across three full-time semesters, as opposed to the traditional two-semester academic calendar, and thus cost more than $20,500 per year. A recent survey also found that 82% of nursing students reported that the $20,500 annual loan limit would negatively affect their ability to finance their education. These same students reported an average annual cost of approximately $38,500, nearly double the new annual graduate borrowing cap. Classifying these programs as graduate programs would result in these students having to take out additional student loans to cover the remainder of their tuition, which will limit the ability for students to complete their advanced degree.

At a time when our nation is facing a health care shortage, especially in primary care, now is not the time to cut off the student pipeline to these programs. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), fifty-seven percent of Medicare beneficiaries received a primary care service from an NP or physician associate (PA), and sixty-six percent of rural Medicare patients received a primary care service from an NP or PA. Consequently, we believe that post-baccalaureate nursing degrees should be included in the department’s definition of a “professional degree.”

Nurses and nurse faculty make up the backbone of our health system, and post-baccalaureate nursing degrees lead to demonstrated outcomes, with a recent study from the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity showing that nursing was one of the top three master’s degrees for return on investment. As such, post-baccalaureate nursing degrees should be treated equally to other accredited post-baccalaureate health profession degrees.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we implore you to work with us to improve and expand the nursing workforce across the country.

###


Peters and Slotkin Urge Secretary Noem to Redesignate and Extend TPS for Yemen Due to the Ongoing Armed Conflict

WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Senators Gary Peters (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) are urging DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to reverse her recent decision ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Yemeni nationals in the U.S. In a letter to Noem, the senators stress that terminating TPS will force hundreds of Yemeni nationals, including a significant number in Michigan, to risk their lives by returning to a country facing an ongoing armed conflict, economic collapse, food insecurity, and the breakdown of essential services.

“Yemeni nationals currently present in the United States should not be forced to return,” wrote the senators. “Extending and redesignating Yemen for TPS would enable Yemeni nationals currently in the United States, including business owners, workers, students, taxpayers, and community members who contribute positively to local economies and civic life, to be able to remain safely in the United States and to work legally to support themselves and their families.”

The senators continued in their letter: “Yemen was initially designated for TPS on September 3, 2015, because forcing Yemeni nationals to return to Yemen would pose a serious threat to their personal safety due to the ongoing armed conflict. The Department of Homeland Security has either extended, or extended and redesignated, Yemen for TPS multiple times.”

“We urge you to extend and redesignate Yemen for TPS to protect Yemeni nationals in the United States without delay – in accordance with the law, facts on the ground, and America’s longstanding commitment to humane immigration policy.” the senators concluded.

Text of the full letter is available here.

###


ICYMI: Reed Joins Brookings for Discussion on U.S. Policy in Changing Nuclear Landscape

VIDEO: “We’re in a brave new world:” Ranking Member Reed discusses U.S. nuclear policy & national security with Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon

WASHINGTON, DC – As Russia and China race to simultaneously modernize and expand their nuclear arsenals and with the recent expiration of the New START treaty that has provided significant guardrails for the international proliferation of nuclear arms for more than two decades, U.S. Senator Jack Reed joined Michael O’Hanlon, the director of research for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, on Friday, February 27, 2026, for a conversation on how the U.S. is adapting its nuclear policies and objectives in a shifting global landscape.

Senator Reed, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sat down with O’Hanlon for a wide-ranging discussion that focused on modernizing the essential elements of the nation’s nuclear triad and how deterrence is critical to combat the growth and aggression of both Russia and China as well as the general proliferation of nuclear weapons across the globe.

Reed also discussed recent developments in technology and how they can strengthen national security and the importance of modernizing, growing, and innovating within the nation’s defense industrial base.

A video of this discussion can be viewed here and a transcript of the conversation between Senator Reed and O’Hanlon follows:

MICHAEL O’HANLON: Good morning, everyone. Thank you again for being here. And I am thrilled. I'm Michael O’Hanlon in the foreign policy program. Thrilled to have Senator Jack Reed here today, a great friend of Brookings, a great public servant, now in his 30th year in the US Senate from the small but mighty state of Rhode Island. Let me just give you a quick bio for those of you who don't remember his background. He grew up in Rhode Island. His dad was in the Navy. He went to West Point in the fall of 1967, summer of 1967, right during the Vietnam War, graduated in 1971. Took, from my Princeton and Columbia perspective, an unfortunate detour through Harvard for a while, but nonetheless kept his bearings and served in the US Army with the 82nd Airborne as well as teaching at West Point for a while. Did some law, got interested in Rhode Island politics in the 1980s, then served as congressman from Rhode Island in the early 90s before being elected to the US Senate in 1996. As you know, he's currently the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as doing many other things for the good of this country. So if you would please join me in welcoming Senator Jack Reed.

U.S. SENATOR JACK REED: Thanks, Michael. Thank you very much.

O’HANLON: So, Senator Reed, I want to talk about some of the specifics in the nuclear weapons agenda that you're dealing with on the Armed Services Committee in a minute. But I thought in the spirit of the first panel, I would just ask you for your general feel about the state of the world and where you have the greatest concerns about nuclear weapons today. Just to give you a quick summary of the previous panel with a regionalist from Europe and the Middle East and Northeast Asia. Mara Carlin asked what's your feel for how dangerous things are today and how much the nuclear issue is paramount? Well, Suzanne Maloney, who's an Iran specialist, said nine given where we are, but the other answers were more like 6. But that's not a comforting number. And then of course, Tom Wright said that in Europe a couple years ago, 2022, he might have said 8 or 9 during the worst of the Ukraine crisis. And Andrew Yoo said maybe in 2017 he would have given a score of eight or nine for the situation in North Korea. But let me just turn to you, whatever, whether you want to use numbers or I’d just be curious for your sense of where we are in the broader nuclear weapons issue today in the world.

REED: Well, we're in a brave new world, frankly. We're now looking at the competition between China, Russia and United States. There's no longer a bipolar nuclear problem, it's a tripolar or multipolar when you take in other nuclear states. So we're emerging out of a rather stable period of the Cold War and the post-Cold War into something that is quite dynamic. China is gearing up, it's estimated by 2035 they could have 1500 warheads. The Russians have about 1500 strategic warheads. That's a lot to contend with. We've never had that force ratio against us before. We're also in a situation where we've seen the end of formal arms control treaties. I hope that's temporary because arms control was a way that provided some certainty, some verification and some lines of communication, which are absolutely critical in a crisis moment. And we have to renew an effort, a sincere effort to get back on the negotiating table with both the Russians and the Chinese. Probably not simultaneously, but get in motion these discussions to try to limit nuclear weapons, to try to verify and to coordinate. So we have opportunities and emergencies to communicate and things like that, and then we've got the proliferation that could take place. It's disconcerting to note that in 2022, our National Defense strategy, extended deterrence was mentioned 16-17 times, the last one in 2026: zero. We're not talking about providing that kind of context for our allies where they don't have to rely on nuclear weapons and proliferation is much more problematic today than it was. So we're, you know, again, a new experience for us.

O’HANLON: Thank you. If I could, I want to get a little bit more programmatic now. And we didn't talk about that a lot on panel one, but you obviously live this stuff day in and day out. And for a decade now at least, the Pentagon's been saying through Republican and Democratic administrations nuclear modernization is our top priority and the Congress has tried to support that agenda. Overall, just to remind folks of where we are, we've got B-21 bombers starting to be produced and starting to fly. They're going to replace some of the existing nuclear deterrent, but they're not yet operational in deployed units. We've got the Columbia class submarine about to, I think the first boat is supposed to hit the water next year and maybe be deployable within about five years. And then the ICBM, the Sentinel ICBM has had some delays, but it's expected to replace the Minuteman in the 2030s. And then of course, there's all the warhead modernization and then there's the cruise missile, both air launched and sea launched. I wondered if you could just give us a sense of how you feel, how these programs are going and just your gut feel for how we're doing?

REED: No, we're at a critical moment where every aspect of the triad has to be updated, modernized and that's expensive, time consuming and difficult. And that is a challenge both in terms of budget and in terms of technology. When you look at the Columbia, it's a year behind schedule. There are great efforts now both from the Pentagon, and Deputy Secretary Feinberg I think is really engaged directly, to try to get that program back on track and on budget. But I expect it's going to be a difficult process to do that. And we need it because our previous Ohio class submarines are literally wearing out. They can't be forever at sea. So that's one program that's behind and very expensive. The B-21 is a success. It's done quite well and I, you know, commend the department and the contractors for doing it. The problem is we have to build 100 of them and they're replacing, in large part, the B-52. The last B-52 was built in 1962. So we're in a real dilemma there. We have good technology, but we've got to multiply it extensively. When you get to Sentinel, it's really a problem. It's had a Nunn-McCurdy breach already. It's very expensive and it is, in reality, the largest military construction project we've ever undertaken in terms of dollars. And we're running into the same problems we're running into in other areas of our economy. We don't have the workers to go up there into the plains of Montana. We don't have the access to the raw materials, etc. It's a very difficult problem and we have to do that. So we're facing a very challenging situation. And then of course we've got, as you mentioned, new weapons systems that are coming on that we have to develop responses to, you know, we're talking seriously about: can we use lasers to deflect some of these new sophisticated weapons? That's in research, but it's not in the field yet. And put on top of that, the president’s proposal for Golden Dome, which is a very expensive and technically challenging operation. So we're in a very, I think, precarious moment in terms of all of our triad and our deterrence.

O’HANLON: I want to get to the Golden Dome in a second, but first on a couple of the specific offensive weapons programs. You mentioned Sentinel, but there's also been efforts that you've been part of and had an important role to try to extend the life of the Minuteman in the meantime. So we still have a land based ICBM component to the Triad. Are you comfortable that that's going to be OK, that's going to bridge us to the point where Sentinel can be deployed? In other words, is your concern about the ICBM primarily about expense, which obviously is serious but is not necessarily going to threaten our deterrent. Or do you think there could be a gap between the two programs?

REED: I think we'll do everything conceivable to avoid a gap. That might be not only extending the life of Minuteman, but thinking of other creative ways of repositioning systems that might be able to, you know, compensate in some part for the failure of our Sentinel systems going forward, but we're working very, very hard to prevent any type of gaps. We need a triad. It's been a sturdy form of deterrence over 60 plus years and we understand that. But it's difficult to predict given the technical complexity of these systems and also as I pointed out, with the Sentinels, some old-fashioned bricks and mortar problems, we just can't get the people to do the work.

O’HANLON: Could I come back to that issue and from the great state of Rhode Island, of course, you're involved in building submarines, nuclear armed as well as nuclear powered attack submarines. Could you give us a quick update on where we are in trying to strengthen and enlarge the submarine industrial base?

REED: We are taking strong steps to do that. I think everyone recognizes that the strongest aspect of the triad is our submarines because they're very difficult, if not, we hope, impossible to detect. But they provide the real essential counterpunch that we need in a situation that could develop. What we've done, and this started back in 2017, with John McCain – my good friend and a remarkable senator, see he didn't go to college, you know… That's a joke, ladies and gentlemen. He went to the Naval Academy. No, John was one of the most remarkable and greatest senators I've ever served with. But back in 2017, we created this industrial submarine base fund, which was designed to give the tools to the companies, particularly in training manpower. That was one of the great problems, getting in the machinists, the welders, the people into the yard. So that was adopted by the Navy and now that's an official Navy program. But the administration, both the Biden administration and Trump administration, has really stepped up and trying to incentivize, encourage and demand that the companies expand, that they invest more of their money into the submarine industrial base and that we are – because this is the key, I think – if we can produce replacements for the 688, the Ohio class, and then I think we'll be in in a good shape in terms of particularly as you mentioned, if we have a slight gap in one of the other aspects to the triad. We're making progress, but we have a long way to go. We have to build new facilities. We have to also establish sort of warehousing capacities. One of the problems in the submarine industrial base and I think in the other industrial bases is we're not sending constant demand signals to suppliers. It was every year, maybe every year, probably, etcetera. What we have to do is be able to send that constant demand signal, which means Electric Boat has to be able to store equipment and parts that they can't use right away, so they can still keep buying them from the suppliers. So those are some of the aspects that we're trying to develop now.

O’HANLON: Do you feel like the policy is basically on the right path in terms of strengthening and enlarging the submarine industrial base or do you feel like there is still major new ideas that are needed?

REED: Well, I think it's on the right path, but it takes constant supervision and it also takes, you know, the focus of: we've got to get this done. And that I hope, is going to be apparent and evident everywhere throughout the industrial base. Congress is committed to the submarine. That's one issue that's not debated on partisan or parochial or geographic lines. We understand this. This system is the number one priority to the Navy and probably to DoD. So that's good. The financial support will be there. One thing we have to do, and this goes I think for all systems, is we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have to go ahead with technologies that might be improved, but they're good now. Let's get them in, get them to sea. And that's something that I think along the way we've been tempted: the multiple redesigns of systems, the multiple changes to make them better, slow us down and we’d rather have, I think, a very good ship in the water now rather than a perfect ship someday.

O’HANLON: Let me ask you if I could about missile and air defense and drone defense. Golden Dome. Because you and I have both been around this debate a while and I guess, you know, it's now been 43 years since President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, Star Wars speech, but it's now about a year since President Trump's vision for something similar. And the stated goal is to be able to defend the entire country against many types of attack, including large scale Russian, Chinese attack, if I understand the vision correctly, is that your understanding of the vision as well? And is that a realistic standard or should we be maybe ratcheting down our expectations just a little bit?

REED: Well, I think what we should do is look very carefully at can we produce a system that is both effective and reasonably cost efficient, I hope. I think we have to make that investigation seriously, which we're doing now. We have to understand though that our key aspect of deterrence is our triad. It's not golden Dome, it's our triad. And that should be the first priority. Golden Dome, I think it’s going to have to incorporate different aspects, some of them novel, like we talked before about laser weapon systems, you know, to hit things like hypersonics that are coming in. Ballistic missiles aren't going to help a lot. Some lasers might. That's something we have to work on, and we have to work on it regardless of whether we create a big Golden Dome system. We need those platforms. Then I think also the communication system and the command and control systems are critical, but they're critical for not just Golden Dome, for our whole military system, but part of the development of Golden Dome has to be and should be integrated with the development of a comprehensive command and control system for nuclear weapons and for operations in general. So I think it has to be explored and we have to make some hard choices along the way. Is this feasible or is it too expensive? Or is it just technologically not achievable? But we have to start.

O’HANLON: Are you getting any sense yet of what the architecture might look like? I was reviewing the Bush, the first Bush administration's G pal system, global protection against limited strikes for the old timers in the room who've been around this debate as well for a while. And that was a vision to maybe have about a half dozen strongholds of defense capability more or less along the perimeter of the United States, but East Coast as well as West Coast, maybe even southern border as well as northern border. And to think about limited strikes, accidental strikes, unauthorized strikes from whomever. It seems like that logic is even more compelling now when we have drones that could be launched from who knows where. And so is that the kind of an architecture we should be expecting or that you would advocate? Or do we have any idea really where the Trump administration is going to come down and how they would position and posture different types of capability?

REED: Well, I don't want to comment specifically on the architecture because I don't want to get into areas that I should not be in. But I think one of the aspects that we've seen now and this is again, a new development. You know, 20 years ago space was not an arena of conflict as it is today. So space is going to be critical in many aspects of this. One is, we believe in public reports that the Russians are weaponizing space, and the Chinese are thinking about it if they haven't already done it. So how do we respond to that? And also from the perspective of trying to hit these targets coming from over the horizon or even closer, you know? The Gulf of Mexico, I think that's the term. Space offers us a vantage point that is probably better than just land systems or other systems. So I think that's one of the aspects that's going to be developed significantly – our role in space and how we're going to deal with its weaponization. It's now an arena of conflict that used to be a semi passive area where we could operate and others could operate relatively peaceful.

O’HANLON: You said something a second ago that caught my attention. The implication that a number of dimensions of Golden Dome may be classified, is that my understanding, is that correct, and is that going to be the way it stays or are we going to be given more detail for the public debate pretty soon about what the overall capabilities might look like?

REED: Well, you know, we have to be respectful of, you know, intelligence. But one of the aspects of the administration which I've publicly criticized is the lack of sharing information. Which is not or should not be classified. Just not sharing information, not just with the public, but with the Congress too. There has to be more forthcoming discussions about systems without violating, you know, security or classifications. But we have to engage the American people in this debate because they ultimately would be paying for it and supporting it and so I again I think there should be much more discussion of this not just slogan but at least an outline of what they intend to do where do they intend to do it.

O’HANLON: I have just two more questions so please start thinking of your own in the audience but I wanted to ask you, just step a little bit broader and above the nuclear issue alone, but in the spirit of what we were just discussing, to ask about this purported $1.5 trillion budget request that President Trump's been saying he might put forth to the Congress, which I'm interpreting to be sort of in the spirit of last year's big beautiful act where he asked for another $100 billion in unusual funding, mandatory funding for the Defense Department. Normally it's of course a discretionary account. And what I'm wondering is, are they going to ask for a sort of a trillion dollars in old fashioned discretionary money and then another half trillion in mandatory money they could spend at their own discretion with less reporting, less congressional oversight? And on whatever time horizon they choose, but in the meantime, President Trump can claim to have created the largest defense budget in U.S. history. Is that your expectation of where this might be headed or do you think they're going to rethink that whole $1.5 trillion?

REED: I would not be surprised if it evolves as you suggest, which is there's a budget line which is enhanced significantly, but there's also this reconciliation process where they have money that's very flexible. I’m being polite, but very flexible. The issue I think we have to start asking, we're raising these questions now is, can the Department of Defense spend the money they already have effectively and efficiently? And if they can't, then why are we putting more money into the system? That's one question. I think also every program has to be looked at. You know, we were just talking about Golden Dome. I mean, the price tag has not been announced, but I would assume it's not trivial by any means. Are we paying for that? Well, where's the, the science, the plans so we know that we're, we know we're making an investment in something that's real, not just a slogan like I suggested before. So I think there's going to be real questions. The other aspect of this we have to consider is: we're facing significant deficits and we have to be conscious of those. We're also facing significant issues: Social Security, Medicare, our demographics are changing dramatically, and those programs are becoming more and more expensive, fewer people paying into the system. Where are we going to get this adjustment in terms of defense spending versus domestic spending? We have to in good faith and honestly do that for the American people. So, and then of course, the administration continually suggests the way to prosperity is tax cuts. Well, that's nice too. But how does that factor into significant defense spending and then these other vital programs? At the State of the Union, the president was pounding the table: We will not cut Social Security, will not cut Medicare. Well, how do we fund it?

O’HANLON: Do you think that's going to rise to a high level political debate issue in the coming midterm or next presidential election? Because the American people don't seem to react to that issue very, very well in terms of, we don't have the same political champions of reducing the deficit that we did 30 and 40 years ago anymore.

REED: No, I think though that the reality is just becoming more apparent to everyone. And it's frankly, the last time we had a surplus was at the end of the Clinton administration. We estimated to be over 10 years about $7 trillion of surplus. Which I think we could have spent wisely had we not dissipated it. But that was the result of the votes I took in 94 to balance the budget, which was cutting expenses and raising taxes. And you know, you have a lot of people who will talk about the deficit but also want to cut taxes. And the arithmetic usually doesn't work out so well.

O’HANLON: Last question, thank you. We mentioned arms control before and you talked about the importance of trying to revive it. I realize we're all sort of in early days and this is one of our jobs at a place like Brookings to help come up with new ideas, but do you have any initial instincts about how to involve 3 major nuclear powers in an arms control conversation or maybe even 5 or maybe even more? I mean, how would we envision a future arms control framework?

REED: Well, I think benefiting from the advice of Rose Scott Mueller, who has testified before the committee, I think it should be a two track process. We have an established cultural, sort of institutional relationship with the Russians in terms of the office negotiation. We should actively re-engage in that and it's going to require not just a one off, you know, somebody showing off for a couple of days and talking. We're going to have to invest institutionally in the staff and committed experts to sit down with their counterparts and start talking about how we can develop again arms control that benefits both of us because that's the whole key to an agreement. With the Chinese, I think we would be sort of naive to pull them in and suggest that they're going to be ready to negotiate with the Russians and ourselves. But I think we can start exploring things like early warning communication, fail safe, and Sam Nunn and Ernie Moniz are doing an excellent job. They are going to China, they're talking to the Chinese and the Chinese at certain levels are responsive. So I think we take two distinct tracks. One is, for example with the Russians, can we start thinking about, well, let's have an overall warhead cap so we don't get into the strategic and tactical issues? That might be an approach that would work better now. With the Chinese, I think it's much more limited, saying why don't we have several lines of communication that are real, that when we call you will pick up the phone? And we can have a real dialogue to avoid mistakes which we would both sides would regret.

I think that's the way we begin.

O’HANLON: That's great. One last footnote question and then we'll go to you in the audience. Recently we've seen discussion about whether the Chinese in 2020 conducted a very low yield nuclear test to whether that should then be a basis for the United States considering doing the same. For those of you who don't follow this stuff in detail, I think it was the kind of a test that might involve a small amount of fissile material, but be measured with a yield and sort of at roughly the same size explosion as the conventional explosive inside the warhead. Not a real explosion of a nuclear scale, but designed to really test the components more fully, the United States considered doing these for a while and historically did before I think our test moratorium in 1992. And of course all three major powers, Russia, China, the United States where all signatories of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but no one has ratified it or at least no one's currently in good standing on that. Any thoughts you've got about where we stand with that Chinese nuclear tests? As it was alleged to have occurred, and whether the United States should reciprocate?

REED: Well, I think we have to look at where we are, frankly. We have conducted over 1000 nuclear tests since 1945. The Russians about 500 to 700 tests. The Chinese much less than. And you go down to the most recent entries into the arms race, about less than 10, Pakistan and India. We have so much data from those tests, much more so than any other nation, that we don't necessarily need more data. We also have spent a roughly $10 billion on the National Ignition Facility in which we are studying and have fairly good aspect of view on the physics of nuclear reactions, which no other nation has that kind of analysis and data. And then every year, as you know, the three national labs have to certify that our systems are ready and also the STRATCOM commander. And they've done that for the last 25 years. So we're not in the position I think of desperately needed to test. Once we do test though, if we did, it would be an invitation to all these other countries to say, oh, we're going to catch up. We're going to learn so much via tests. Our real issue in terms of testing is related to the problems with the plutonium pits degenerating, etcetera. We're building new plutonium pits and I think that's the way to do it rather than, you know, trying to test them, etcetera. So I think if we got into testing, we would end up giving our opponents a boost without any material gain for the United States. In fact, it would be quite dangerous because you could see the North Koreans just automatically saying oh, me, me, me, I’ve got to do this, this is great. And then you generate the notion of, well, why are they testing? Are they preparing for something? Well, then I have to out prepare them. You know, we wanted to again, get back into negotiations, not back into, you know, dramatic demonstrations of our ability to blow the place up.

O’HANLON: It's sort of interesting the North Koreans haven't tested since 2017, even though we were pretty convinced they would. And I guess maybe still are wondering if they might.

REED: If we do a test, I would bet some money on, you know, that they would.

O’HANLON: Yeah, I think so.


Reed & Women’s Fund of Rhode Island Celebrate Women’s History Month at Cranston Public Library

CRANSTON, RI – To help kickoff Women’s History Month and shine a spotlight on women who inspire and uplift fellow women and girls throughout their communities, U.S. Senator Jack Reed today teamed up with the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island (WFRI) and Rhode Island women leaders to share experiences and provide insights and tips on lifting up women’s voices, advancing equality, and supporting the next generation of Rhode Island women.

Senator Reed and WFRI CEO Kelly Nevins today convened a special Women’s History Month panel discussion – “Leading the Change: Women Shaping a Sustainable Future” – featuring women leaders in education, community resilience, housing, environmental and agricultural advocacy, finance, workforce development, and more.

“Women’s History Month gives us the opportunity to reflect on women’s contributions to every aspect of our society. I am proud to team up with the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island to hold this important conversation each year and expand upon our continued conversation about women clearing the path to progress and creating a sustainable future for future generations,” said Senator Reed. “Sustainability is about much more than our environment. It is about how we ensure progress continues for a more just and equal society and a more perfect union. Especially today, as the administration’s short-sighted policies threaten economic stability, upend affordable health care and housing, and make it harder for working families to thrive, we need responsible leaders who are focused on creating a brighter future for our children and grandchildren. Women have always been at the forefront of this fight and will continue to be.”

“We are living in a moment where many hard-won gains feel less secure than they did a few years ago. Women’s History Month reminds us that every generation inherits unfinished work,” said Kelly Nevins, CEO of Women's Fund of Rhode Island. “While today’s event honored women advocacy leaders, it was also about how each one of us can contribute to a better RI and a better country by voting, organizing, advocating, and sharing our perspectives. We persist.”

Panelists for this discussion included Nessa Richman, Executive Director of the Rhode Island Food Policy Council; Erica Hammond, Legislative Director of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO; Rhonda Mitchell, Executive Director of the Newport Housing Authority; Kimberly Bright, Executive Director of Strategic Initiatives at Rhode Island College (RIC); and Nancy Wolanski, Director for the Alliance for Nonprofit Impact.

The panelists shared their experiences and provided insights and tips on lifting up women’s voices, advancing sustainability and equality, and supporting Rhode Island women leaders.