A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 426, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution of disapproval that would nullify the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's final rule that makes it more difficult for banks to merge and merge in a healthy way. That is why I introduced the House companion, H.J. Res. 92.

Today, we have the opportunity to prevent future administrations from issuing arbitrary rules on mergers and acquisitions that lack robust cost-benefit analysis and would make it significantly harder for financial institutions to grow and compete.

Banks in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky and throughout the country are facing challenges in managing the high costs of complex regulations. Furthermore, customers now demand advanced technological features, such as mobile and online banking, which require substantial capital investments.

Mergers often present the only viable path for these institutions to keep up with these regulatory and technological costs and continue serving their local communities.

They also play a vital role in ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial system. By enabling stronger, well-managed institutions to acquire weaker ones, especially those struggling due to local economic conditions, we can prevent bank failures and the panic that they cause.

Instead of making it harder for banks to merge, we should be eliminating outside obstacles to mergers, enhancing competition and innovation, and ensuring that Americans, especially those in rural and underserved communities, retain access to physical branches with employees who understand their local economies.

That is why I introduced H.R. 1900, the Bank Failure Prevention Act, which includes a shot clock to ensure timely decisions on merger applications.

Mr. Speaker, I come from Kentucky. It is a basketball-crazed Commonwealth, and we care about the shot clock. Congress should care about the shot clock on merger applications, as well.

My bill would restore fairness and predictability, preventing delays and giving banks the stability they need to focus on serving their customers and growing their businesses.

The Bank Failure Prevention Act will help community banks and regional banks thrive in today's competitive environment, providing for a shot clock on the review of those merger applications and providing better outcomes for consumers.

I look forward to marking up this important legislation in the House Financial Services Committee this week.

The OCC's merger rule under the Biden administration would have taken us in the exact opposite direction. It would have upended decades of precedent by shifting the burden onto banks to prove their merger should be approved rather than requiring the OCC to demonstrate how the merger conflicts with statutory factors.

This would be fundamentally unfair, increasing confusion for banks seeking to merge and massively increasing the delay on the pendency and review of these applications without any kind of deadline on the review.

Additionally, the rule would have abandoned expedited review for mergers for small, well-capitalized banks. Before the Biden-era regulation, there was an opportunity for expedited review of healthy mergers when there were small and well-capitalized institutions involved. Unfortunately, because of the Biden regulation, this resulted in a much more protracted process.

Expedited reviews are essential to avoid prolonged, costly merger review processes that hinder banks from maintaining their employee base or investing in technology. Instead, long-drawn-out application processes create an environment of uncertainty due to regulatory delays, even when the proposed transaction is relatively simple.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, consumers are the ones who are hurt most when their banks are caught in limbo and forced to devote resources to navigate the merger process instead of enhancing their own products and services.

The Democratic-led OCC rule was driven more by a progressive ideology against mergers in all sectors of all kinds in the economy rather than sound, rational policymaking. In fact, the Biden-Harris OCC did not even coordinate with the other banking regulators, such as the Federal Reserve Board, before issuing this final rule.

Creating different merger rules for banks with different charters would add significant ambiguity for both banks and their customers.

Thankfully, the current OCC under President Trump has recently indicated they will abandon this flawed rule. However, without this Congressional Review Act resolution, there is nothing to prevent a future administration from reintroducing this damaging rule that would prevent healthy, beneficial mergers from occurring. Community and regional banks, as well as their customers, should not have to fear that the rules will change dramatically in a few years.

Mr. Speaker, I can already anticipate the argument from my good friend from California. I know what she is going to say here in just a few minutes. She is going to say: Look at the Republicans. They are supporting mergers of big, bad banks, and that hurts Americans.

To the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Allowing healthy mergers to prevent bank failures allows for healthy financial institutions to compete with the big Wall Street banks. If you want more competition for big Wall Street banks, you should support this resolution of disapproval because you are going to create stronger competitors to the big Wall Street banks.

Opposing this resolution, like the gentlewoman and ranking member of our committee is about ready to do, is defending the regulatory moat that protects big banks from real competition.

The Democrats' opposition here is defending big banks without competition, and that is why I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support healthy competition to prevent bank failures and to disapprove of this unwise regulation from the Biden administration.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and prevent the regulatory whipsaw that has proven so detrimental for banking institutions and the American people who rely on them. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I yield some time to my good friend from Florida, I will take the opportunity to respond to a few of the points that my friend from California made that maybe she is misunderstanding what the law actually says.

When I refer to the law, I am referring to the Congressional Review Act, which is the statute that we are invoking here to invalidate this Biden-era regulation.

The gentlewoman from California says that: This is a waste of time. The Trump OCC has rescinded the rule. We don't need to do this. I would remind the gentlewoman from California the reason why we need to do this. The reason why we are invoking the provisions

of the Congressional Review Act is that passing a resolution of disapproval under this law ensures that a substantially similar bad rule can never be reintroduced in the future without scrutiny.

We obviously know that there are bad regulators from the prior administration that prevented healthy mergers that would have prevented bank failures. There is no guarantee that we are not going to have an equally bad regulator in the future. That is why we have to take out this insurance policy against bad regulators in the future.

That is what the CRA is. It sends a clear message about balanced regulations that foster competition and innovation without excessive bureaucracy, and it safeguards against unchecked regulatory actions, ensuring that future rules undergo careful oversight.

Now I will address this assertion that bank merger applications are just rubber-stamped by regulators. If there is any evidence that that is not true, it is proof from the prior administration. Not only was there not a rubberstamp, there was so much scrutiny that they never happened. They languished. There was no shot clock. There was no review. They just sat there and languished.

Do you know what happened as a result? Banks withered on the vine waiting for a decision because of regulatory paralysis from the previous administration. There was hardly a rubberstamp. There was never a decision.

Frankly, all we are asking for is a decision one way or another, Mr. Speaker, yes or no, green light, red light. Don't just sit there in purgatory forever and not make a doggone decision. That is the problem we are trying to fix.

With respect to the gentlewoman's concern about closed branches, we are concerned about the lack of branches. We are concerned about banking deserts. That is exactly why Republicans introduced a resolution to allow for more de novo charters. We want more banks, not less. We want more competition, not less. We want those new banks to form in those underserved communities, urban, rural, suburban, wherever they are. We need more.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentlewoman, the ranking member, is: Why did she vote against that? If she is so concerned about no branches, not enough branches, banking deserts, why is she voting against making it easier for new banks to form in those places where there are no financial services?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos), who is a great leader on our committee and who will offer his wisdom on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as to our Democratic colleagues' concern that this legislation and allowing for healthy mergers to happen in the banking sector would somehow diminish financial services or that customer service would somehow be lost, it is actually the opposite.

When you have healthy mergers among, especially, community banks or a small regional bank acquiring a community bank, that allows them to add scale. That allows them to invest in the very technology that provides the customers with better services, with better, more innovative financial services and products.

Far from losing customer service, this is a way for smaller institutions, regional banks, to come together into combinations, invest in more technology, to lower costs, to help those customers to increase access to financial services in ways that they can better compete with the megabanks.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will address a couple of the arguments that were just made.

I think I heard the ranking member say that what we are trying to do is let them do whatever they want to do. That is actually not at all the case. The merger review process is a very involved process. There is quite a bit of

scrutiny that goes into approving these mergers. In fact, what we want to do here with the resolution disapproving of this is to actually force the agencies to make a decision one way or the other.

The problem we have seen, especially in the previous administration, is not necessarily that they disapproved a merger. They just didn't make a decision. If it is in the interest of financial stability to reject a bank merger, then that very well could be a legitimate regulatory decision, but make the decision. That is what we are saying here: Make the decision.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman is concerned about layoffs and employees of banks losing their jobs, the surest way that you will have massive layoffs and workers losing their jobs is for a bank merger application to be presented to the agencies and have literally no decision because guess where the acquisition target employees are going to go. They are going to go away. They are not going to stay with the bank.

What we are saying is: Give the merger applicant a decision one way or the other. That is the best way you can have worker retention in the banking sector.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his excellent comments. I think another important point that needs to be made in the context of this resolution of disapproval of the Biden-era OCC rule is what is actually happening in the marketplace.

I think the arguments made on the other side of the aisle assume an antiquated market where the only competition that exists are banks, competing with banks. That is not the case anymore. We are living in 2025. In 2025, the advent of all kinds of nonbank financial services has to be taken into account when you look at the merger landscape in banking.

We have fintechs. We have nonbanks. There are credit unions. There is farm credit. There are all kinds of payment systems, movement to stablecoins and the blockchain. Financial services look a whole lot different than it did even 25 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, when you are doing an analysis of the propriety of a bank merger, you can't just look at whether or not this leads to some level of consolidation in the banking sector. You have to look at it in terms of competition across the financial services landscape.

In order to achieve the scale, to provide the same level of services, to provide the same level of technological convenience, and to provide the same level of underwriting and access to capital that consumers are being accustomed to now in this very competitive landscape, healthy mergers are needed for banks to compete with all of the financial technology that is happening in the economic landscape.

That is not being taken into consideration by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague from California just reminds me to make the point that economies of scale are not inherently bad. Economies of scale and big, large financial institutions serve our economy. Community banks serve our economy. Midsize banks serve our economy. Regional banks serve our economy. Super-regional banks serve our economy, and big banks serve our economy. They serve different parts of the economy.

At the larger end, the globally and systemically important financial institutions make markets. They are part of why we have the deepest, most liquid, and most competitive capital markets on planet Earth. This is not a bad thing. This is a good thing.

Those large institutions are capable of serving large, multinational corporations that make the United States a destination for capital flows in our country. They are a magnet for foreign direct investment. They help us with countering terrorism. They give us a global visibility that we wouldn't have if we didn't have large globally important financial institutions that were forward positioned in other continents that allowed us visibility into financial flows and helped our law enforcement and our intelligence agencies find bad actors.

That is a good thing. That is not a bad thing. It is important, though, that we preserve the dynamism and the diversity of our banking sector. That is why we also want large regional banks, regional banks, midsize banks, and, yes, community banks and microbanks. We want it all. It is the diversity and heterogeneity of the banking sector that makes our system the best in the world.

That is why we want healthy mergers. We want de novo charters to backfill, but we want healthy mergers so that we have a constantly dynamic and healthy banking system.

Now, the gentlewoman cites this one particular case of fraud in one large bank, and she is right. It was a bad case, and it was properly punished by the regulators. She cites to a case of cross-selling and overly aggressive marketing and a sales goals program and compliance problems. It is true. There were, but it is not because there are healthy mergers in this country that that happened. That is not why that happened. That could have happened in a regional bank. That could have happened even in a smaller bank. It happened to happen in a larger bank, but guess what?

There are a lot of other large banks in this country where they didn't have those problems. When there are problems, that is why we have regulators and bank examiners. They fix those problems to make sure that they never happen again. You know what can help prevent those problems from happening even more than regulators, even more than central planning from Washington? Mr. Speaker, it is competition and choice.

That particular institution that the gentlewoman is talking about, maybe they didn't have enough competition. Maybe they didn't have enough competition, Mr. Speaker, because we had regulators that prevented healthy mergers to enter into their market space and actually compete and take customers who are unsatisfied with that cross-selling.

The whole point here is that we want a dynamic marketplace so that we can create competition. That is the best form of consumer protection, not a regulator, not an examiner, not regulatory inaction, or regulatory indecision. That is not consumer protection, but healthy mergers that allow for greater competition of the big banks. That is the way to protect consumers.

I will make one other point before I reserve, as well. When we say that large banks are not inherently bad, what we mean by that is that when you allow for a merger, let's say, of two regional banks, and you allow that scale, that economies of scale to take place, and where there are investments in technology, not only do you give the customers of that larger institution, that successor merged institution with greater resources to provide lower cost services, more technological advancements, but, yes, you allow them to invest in what? They invest in consumer protection.

You allow them to make sure that people in their organization are not making mistakes with cross-selling, making sure that they are using the latest technology to ensure that everybody is getting the right deal and the best deal and the most financial inclusion possible given that particular customer's circumstances.

Far from promoting problems, this resolution will actually help solve the problems.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of where a merger that was recently approved certainly doesn't hurt consumers but helps consumers and creates more competition.

The gentlewoman cites the approval of the Capital One-Discover merger. Do you know what that merger did? It created a third option, in addition to MasterCard and Visa, for consumers to access in terms of a payment network. That is not diminishing competition. That is creating more competition. It is more competition for Visa and more competition for MasterCard. Ask Visa and MasterCard. They will tell you.

This is a very formidable competitor to MasterCard and Visa now that there is an approved merger between Capital One, a substantial credit card business, a substantial payment business, and Discover with their substantial network. You create a third option for consumers. That is procompetition, not anticompetition.

I will make another point. This is not just about big banks. It is about small community banks. We are scrutinizing today the Biden OCC's regulation.

What did that regulation do, Mr. Speaker? It eliminated expedited procedures for approval of what? It eliminated expedited procedures for approval of community bank mergers, small noncomplex mergers that would allow those community banks to serve those small communities better. That regulation eliminated that.

Here is what the trade association of the smallest banks in America says about that Biden regulation. Here is what the small banks say about that regulation.

``ICBA strongly opposes the elimination of the expedited review and streamlined applications. . . . not every transaction is complex. For example, in instances where two community banks within the same market attempt to merge, and the merger does not pose significant financial stability, consumer protection, competition or safety, and soundness concerns, the OCC should treat the transaction as noncomplex and permit for review under streamlined procedures.''

It makes sense to me that we would have streamlined, expedited procedures so that we can make sure community banks can continue to compete. This is not about big banks. It is about small banks and the survival of small banks under the avalanche of red tape that came at them after Dodd-Frank, after the avalanche of competition from nonbanks and credit unions and fintechs and blockchain companies. We want these small banks to survive, to continue to serve their communities. This is the way they do it.

Finally, I will make a point that hasn't really been discussed here today in this debate; that is, we should remember the lessons of Silicon Valley Bank. There was a very, very significant panic because of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and there was a run on that bank.

We don't want that to happen again. We don't want a panic. We don't want a run. We want to prevent bank failures, and the way to prevent bank failures is to allow strong banks to acquire weak banks. We want to make sure that a failing bank can be saved by a white knight. Delaying approvals of healthy mergers is very dangerous for financial stability.

We need this legislation so that we never have a bad regulation that would prevent regulators from allowing expedited approval of mergers that help save the system.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, former Federal Reserve Governor and now-Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, who talked about the procompetition benefits of healthy mergers, said: ``Reducing the efficiency of bank M&A can be a deterrent to healthy bank transactions. It can reduce the effectiveness of M&A activity that preserves the presence of community banks in underserved areas, prevent institutions from pursuing prudent growth strategies, and actually undermine competition by preventing firms from growing to a larger scale, effectively creating a `protected class' of larger institutions.''

Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing that was called when the ranking member was the chair. She called in all the CEOs of the biggest banks in the country. In this particular hearing, the gentlewoman from California also hauled in some of the CEOs of the regional banks, the big regional banks, in addition to the G-SIB Wall Street banks.

I noticed that the CEO of a successor institution that was formed by the merger of two regional banks was sitting right next to the CEO of one of the largest banks on planet Earth, so I said to the CEO of one of the largest banks on planet Earth: This gentleman who is now the CEO of a big regional bank is sitting next to you. Can you tell me what a more formidable competitor to your big Wall Street bank is? Is it the original small regional bank, the other small regional bank, or is it the combination of those two regional banks that made a bigger regional bank?

He said: Undoubtedly, it is the bigger regional bank that poses a bigger competitive threat to me, the big Wall Street bank.

Not all mergers are bad. There are a lot of mergers that help create more competition. That is what we want.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, it provides better financial services and products and access to the American Dream for the American people.

That is why we want to disapprove this bad regulation. That is why we want to make sure that mergers are allowed to allow for distressed banks to sell themselves instead of failing, thereby insulating the Deposit Insurance Fund from losses.

This is to help financial stability, Mr. Speaker. I urge all of my colleagues, for the reasons that we have outlined today, to help us invalidate this bad regulation and to make sure that no regulator in the future can pass another bad regulation like this that would prevent healthy mergers.

For goodness' sake, if you want dynamism and competition in a diverse banking system, support our agenda that not only allows for healthy mergers but also provides for regulatory tailoring so that we provide relief to small community banks so that they can compete, relief to the regional banks so that they can compete, and, for goodness sake, clear the way for de novo charters, new banks, to come into the system.

I don't know, for the life of me, why my friends on the other side of the aisle who complain about big banks won't allow for healthy mergers to compete with them, won't allow for new banks to come into the system by overregulating the heck out of the sector, and won't allow there to be a dynamic, diverse banking system.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and others, as I explained earlier, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today for a rule on two measures, two lousy measures doubling down on the Republicans' agenda to help big banks and big polluters.

S.J. Res. 13 is a gift-wrapped giveaway to Wall Street, plain and simple. It would make it easier for big banks to get even bigger, hurting small businesses and communities in the process.

S.J. Res. 31 is even worse, a blatant handout to big polluters, putting corporate profits ahead of our constituents' health and safety.

This isn't new, Mr. Speaker. That has been the Republican playbook all Congress long: Help the polluters. Help the banks. Help Wall Street, and help the CEOs. They want to help everyone except the working people who actually need it.

Mr. Speaker, you may ask: Why?

I would say: Follow the money. Look at the donations.

One of the things we need to get serious about in this Congress and hopefully when Democrats take control of the House after the next election, this will be a priority, and that is campaign finance reform.

All this excessive money from big industries, from big banks, from corporations, and from people like Elon Musk pollute this Chamber in a way where the needs and the wants of regular people get put to the side.

It is disgraceful, if we are being honest here, Mr. Speaker. As bad as these two bills are--and I can't emphasize enough that they are really bad--they are just the warm-up act. In fact, this is filler. We weren't even supposed to be dealing with these bills. We were supposed to be dealing with the budget reconciliation bill. Mr. Speaker, because of the disarray within the Republican Conference, all of a sudden, these bills appeared.

That is because in just over 13 hours, Mr. Speaker, the House Rules Committee will meet starting at 1 o'clock in the morning to debate a bill that steals from the American people so they can help out the billionaire donors who write them big checks.

Now, let me ask: If this bill is so great, so big, and so beautiful as Donald Trump says it is, then why the hell are we debating it in the middle of the night?

Why not debate it in broad daylight where the American people can tune in and hear what it is really about?

We all know the answer.

I encourage the American people to pay attention to what is happening very, very, very early in the morning here in the United States Capitol. Watch what happens in the Rules Committee at 1 o'clock in the morning.

To all the insomniacs out there: Tune in at 1 o'clock in the morning and watch what unfolds in that committee. Republicans do not want you to pay attention to their tax scam.

Hell, Trump doesn't even want Republicans to pay attention to what is in this bill. Mr. Speaker, he told you guys to close your eyes and vote for this garbage.

Republicans were ordered not to say a word in committee, just fall in line and rubber-stamp it.

Now listen to this: Now they are sneaking a change into the rules buried in the fine print of this rule to give themselves same-day authority to bring the bill to the floor with a moment's notice. This bill is over 1,000 pages long.

They want to ram it through the Rules Committee, potentially changing it, and we know that there are changes coming, and then vote on it just hours later. It is a bill that adds trillions to the deficit and kicks millions of people off their healthcare.

Republicans once bragged about requiring 72 hours to review legislation.

Mr. Speaker, do you remember that?

Now Republicans are ready to toss that promise in the trash to serve Trump's demands.

If my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus vote for this rule, then they will have reached a new height of hypocrisy. It is unbelievable to me that they cry and whine about passing bills without the time to read them, and then they come down here and support ramming a bill through committee in the middle of the night and bringing it straight to the floor.

It is unbelievable and hypocritical.

Let's be real, Mr. Speaker. This budget reconciliation bill is a disaster. It is unpopular, and it is indefensible. This is all about massive and huge tax breaks to billionaires paid for by stealing from working Americans. That is not hyperbole. That is just the truth. It rips away Medicaid from parents and grandparents. It slashes food assistance for children. The biggest cut in food assistance in history is contained in this bill. It drains resources from the moms and dads all to fund giveaways for those at the very, very top.

Any backroom deals made in the next few hours to twist arms and to buy votes will only make this terrible bill even worse.

This is not what democracy looks like. This is what corruption looks like. Shame on every single person who votes to advance that awful process by torching any semblance of a fair process.

A vote for this rule is a vote to allow Republican leadership to jam this bill through the House without enough time to even read it. There is zero transparency and zero respect for this institution or the Members here. Just close your eyes and vote for it. That is what Trump told Republicans to do: Close your eyes and vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this rushed, reckless process. They deserve leaders who work for them, not for the billionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of things. First of all, I want to correct the record. The gentleman said that this budget reconciliation bill reflects a full, fair, and open process in all the committees of jurisdiction. I hate to tell him, but I am on the Agriculture Committee, and the chairman actually cut off debate when there were dozens of amendments still yet to be offered. That is not a full, open, and fair process. Maybe by Republican standards it is, but by most people's standards, it isn't.

The gentleman is on the Rules Committee. We are debating the rule, so I have a question for my Rules Committee colleague. This rule contains a fast-track process for the Republican tax scam, this so-called budget reconciliation bill. We all know that deals are being made behind closed doors, changes are still being negotiated--big changes, we are told. I would like to know if the majority will commit to ensuring a Congressional Budget Office score is available on the final bill before it moves forward.

We need to know the impact on our constituents, not only how much it will cost, but how many people will lose their healthcare and how quickly they will lose their healthcare.

Those are legitimate questions that, quite frankly, Democrats not only want to know but Republicans should want to know, as well.

Can I get the gentleman to kind of give us some assurances that we know the impact? Will he commit to ensuring a Congressional Budget Office score is available on the final bill before it moves forward?

I am happy to yield to him.

I guess we are not going to get an answer.

I mean, I guess we all know why they don't want the nonpartisan, expert analysis to be made available before a vote on this bill. This vote is a monstrosity. This vote is going to throw at least 14 million people off their healthcare. This is going to constitute the largest cut in food assistance in history. People are going to see their nutrition benefits reduced, which will impact children, senior citizens, veterans, and those with disabilities.

It is relevant to what we are talking about here today because in this rule you provide the authority to immediately bring the budget reconciliation bill to the floor without giving people any time to debate the bill, to be able to analyze the bill, for CBO to do their work on this, or for us to even know what the impact is going to be on our constituents from something this big.

By the way, I hear Republicans say that they have this deadline. There is no deadline. There is nothing magic about having to pass this bill by tomorrow or the next day.

You could do this right. You could actually have a Rules Committee hearing in markup in the light of day. You could do it when you come back after the Memorial Day recess.

People should ask the question: Why are they rushing so quickly? Why are they doing everything they can to jam this through before people have a chance to understand the full impacts of this bill?

The reason why is that they don't want the American people to know what they are doing. They are ashamed of what is in this bill--again, throwing people off healthcare, throwing people off food assistance. Why? It is to give a tax cut to billionaires. Give me a break.

We are here to help lift up people in this country, to be there for people who are struggling. Instead, this Republican Congress is about enriching those who are well-off and well-connected.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am really confused after listening to the gentleman from New York complain about same-day authority. In this bill, the Republicans put in same-day authority to be able to jam this tax scam through.

The gentleman didn't answer my question. I guess he is basically saying that, no, the Republicans will not commit to a CBO score for people to be able to know what, in fact, the bill will do and the impacts the bill will have.

I mean, this bill is so awful that I can't imagine any Democrat voting for it, but it is so awful that I would like to think some Republicans who have a conscience wouldn't vote for it either.

I would like to think it would matter to Republicans that 14 million Americans will lose their healthcare. What if that number went up to 20 million or 30 million? Is there any number that will be so high that maybe some Republicans might pause and say, wait a minute, maybe we should not go down this road? I mean, this is crazy.

By the way, the difference in legislation that we are talking about, the Build Back Better bill, I remind the gentleman, was about helping people. This bill is about screwing people. There is a difference here.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which would block the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits and kicking people off these lifesaving programs.

While we vote on two measures that would give even more power to big banks and large industrial polluters, Republicans are trying to jam their multitrillion-dollar budget scam down our throats in the dead of night by holding a hearing at 1 o'clock in the morning in the Rules Committee, hoping the American people won't notice.

Shame on my Republican colleagues.

The American people are noticing, and they are pissed off that working families are going to have to foot the bill for massive tax cuts for multimillionaires, wealthy heirs, and corporations.

Republicans claim they don't want to cut critical benefits for working people. I have heard many of you do press conferences and sign on to letters. Now, here is the chance to prove it by voting for my amendment to bring up the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, can the gentleman name for me one meeting that the Rules Committee had, when Democrats were in control, where the hearing portion began at 1 o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I thought he was intimating that that was the case. I don't know of a single meeting where we began taking testimony--we may have reported out Rules late at night, but not taking testimony.

Mr. Speaker, and, secondly, let me just say, with all due respect, I don't view it as theatrics to stand up for people's healthcare and food assistance. I feel that that is my job.

If Republicans think that somehow people are not going to be adversely impacted, read the CBO score on the current draft of the bill. Again, it is going to get worse.

On the current draft of the bill we are told because of the changes in this bill and because of the inaction by Republicans, CBO estimates right now 14 million Americans will lose their healthcare. That is not me. That is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Republicans rely on that. Democrats rely on that. By saying somehow that people aren't going to be adversely impacted by the cuts in nutrition, I don't think you understand the nutrition title if that is what you believe.

Under this bill, if a mother of a 7-year-old loses her job, for whatever reason, she has 3 months to find a new job. Otherwise, she loses her food assistance.

You have lowered the age of when work requirements are mandatory, and it is a cruel thing to do because this is about children. I don't know, but if you are a single parent and you have got a 7-year-old--by the way, some schools end the day at 2 or 2:30. How do you pay for childcare? How do you try to make ends meet? What about the summer vacation when school is not in session?

My Republican friends are so in the pockets of billionaires and the well-off and the well-connected, I don't think they know what real life is like for so many people in this country, how difficult it is.

When we talk about programs like SNAP, I have a news flash for you. The majority of people on SNAP who are able to work, work. They earn so little they still qualify for the benefit.

By the way, the benefit is on average of about $2 per person per meal. You can't buy a cup of coffee in the United States Capitol Complex for $2.

Then what my friends don't talk about is how this is shifting some of the cost burdens on to States. All of a sudden States are going to be required to come up with hundreds of millions and, in some cases, billions of dollars in order to prevent people from losing their food assistance.

Who does that? Who does that, all while giving tax breaks to billionaires?

It just makes no sense to me. All we are asking for--and I think some Republicans may agree with me on this--is before you bring the bill to the floor--and I appreciate the gentleman saying that there will be a CBO score by the time it gets through the Senate--don't House Members deserve to know what the hell they are voting on before they vote on it?

We ought to insist that we all go into this with our eyes wide open, so that we know, in fact, what the impact is going to be on our constituents. I don't think that is a radical thing to demand or to ask for. Yet, my Republican friends seem to think that that is unrealistic.

This bill is going to need major changes for me to even take another look at it and show the priorities don't represent my values. We don't share the same values. It is clear when I look at this bill.

The bottom line is the process right now and what is relevant to this rule that we are debating right now. My friends on the other side put in same-day rule authority to expedite this so people won't even have adequate time to find out how it impacts their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's set the record straight. I have to go back and look 20 years ago? Yet, I can say this: Democrats never ever did anything like Republicans are doing here today, never. I don't even remember, and maybe the gentleman could enlighten us what the bill was.

Yet, on a major budget reconciliation bill, the majority is jamming this through? It is going to add to the deficit. It is going to throw people off of food assistance. It is going to throw people off of healthcare assistance.

That is not me saying that. That is the Congressional Budget Office saying it. Nothing like this has ever been done. Nothing like this has ever been done, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing it with a straight face as if it is no big deal. It is as if who cares if people lose their food assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about that if we don't do something, taxes will be increased. The reason why taxes are going to be increased is because when my friends passed this tax bill when Trump was last in office, the majority made all the tax cuts for middle-class families temporary. They all expired. Mr. Speaker, do you know what Republicans didn't make temporary? The tax breaks for corporations; those are permanent. Those are permanent, and that says it all there. That is the difference between the two parties, it is that I think we have different priorities. We have a different set of values.

Mr. Speaker, I am really deeply concerned about those who will go without food, and I am deeply concerned about those who will go without healthcare. Those are my priorities. I am sorry it makes the gentleman and the Republicans uncomfortable, but that is where I am coming from.

I don't give a damn about whether Elon Musk gets another tax break or not. Maybe my friends do because he poured so much money into the last campaign. Again, that is why we need campaign finance reform. We need to get this place to focus in on what regular people are concerned about and not what billionaires and corporations are concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, before Republicans try to cut Medicaid and SNAP benefits in the dead of night, I should also point out that the majority is giving gifts to big polluters in broad daylight.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter signed by nearly 100 public health and environmental organizations laying out the extreme risks of increased incidence of cancer and birth defects if S.J. Res. 31 is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Republicans have betrayed the middle class of this country time after time after time. We are seeing that today with the CRA measures that uplift big banks and big polluters at the expense of our health, safety, and economic security.

Does anybody think that big banks need more help, that we want big banks to get even bigger, and we want big banks to swallow up community banks? I don't know. On what planet is that a good idea? It is a good idea only in the Republican-controlled Congress here.

We will see during the rest of this week Republicans' priorities all twisted as my Republican colleagues jam through Trump's one big, awful tax scam.

The Speaker has ordered Republicans on the Committee on Rules to meet at 1 o'clock in the morning. That is the middle of the night. Again, here is what puzzles me: We were supposed to meet at noon yesterday, and we are instead meeting at 1 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, we know there are going to be changes. Republicans could have taken testimony and hearings from all the committees and waited to report out the rule until whenever final deals were made with their Members. Yet, Republicans are deliberately choosing to meet at 1 o'clock in the morning on something this consequential.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman thinks it is a good idea. The gentleman says that I will use my time and try to take every moment I can to make my points. I can say to the gentleman: You bet your life I will be. I am going to be fighting like hell for the people of this country. I am not going to sit back, and I can say this for the other Democratic Members and others who will come to this mike: We are not going to sit back and watch our constituents get screwed over. We are just not going to do that.

Republicans can do it at 1 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the morning. We are going to be there, and we are going to stay there. We are going to offer our amendments, and we are going to make our points. I would urge my colleagues to be prepared to be there for a very, very long time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the gentleman can give us some assurance that, unlike in the Agriculture Committee where the chairman cut off debate and cut off amendments even though there were many amendments that were pending, we won't see the same thing happen in the Committee on Rules.

Clearly, our debate on this bill is something Republicans don't want the American people to see. I invite every single American--it doesn't matter if they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or someone who doesn't follow politics--to tune in to the Committee on Rules. It will be up on our website. I will be live-streaming on YouTube. It will be on C-SPAN. Hell, maybe even cable will carry us live.

I urge Americans to watch it and judge for themselves what this bill means for them and their families and their communities. They will see how Republicans are gutting regular order to jam this thing through. They will probably see them walk in with a huge amendment at the last minute. It will be one that could dramatically change the bill, including accelerating the timeline for kicking millions of people off of their health insurance. As soon as next year, people could start losing coverage. That is what we are being told might be coming down the way.

If the rule that we are talking about right now passes, my Republican colleagues will be able to rush that newly changed bill to the floor just hours later, giving Members and the American public zero time to read it or to review it.

Make no mistake: A vote for today's rule is a vote to give the Republican leadership a blank check to fast-track Trump's one big, ugly bill through this House.

Mr. Speaker, here is what really gets me: Members of the House Freedom

Caucus have said over and over again that bringing a 1,000-page bill to the floor without time to read it is corrupt and immoral. They were the loudest voices demanding the 72-hour rule, so let's see if they mean it. Let's see if they actually mean what they say or if they fold under pressure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of this House to vote ``no'' on the PQ, ``hell no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying legislation, and to send a strong message that we reject this Republican obsession with screwing over the middle class to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 426 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 13 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their designees. It provides for one motion to commit.

Finally, the rule provides for the flexibility to consider a rule related to reconciliation on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee in order to expeditiously enact President Trump's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

The rule before us presents an important opportunity for Congress to continue its work to reverse the last-minute attempts at regulatory overreach by the former Biden-Harris administration.

The rule includes consideration of S.J. 13, to provide for congressional disapproval of a Biden-era Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulation titled ``Business Combinations Under the Bank Merger Act.''

In September of 2024, the OCC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, revised their approach to evaluating bank merger applications. The updated rule restricts a bank's ability to scale, manage risk effectively, and broaden product offerings, ultimately discouraging mergers altogether.

By dismantling a longstanding standard, and eliminating automatic approval for certain applications, the Biden administration's actions risk stifling competition and innovation in the financial sector. These changes will delay strategic decisionmaking among financial institutions and limit access to innovative financial services for everyday Americans.

For small- and mid-sized banks in particular, the rule imposes additional red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that hinder their ability to merge and compete with larger financial institutions. Despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim, the Biden administration's rule strengthens the dominance of the largest market players while undermining smaller, community-focused institutions, limiting consumer choice and consumer access.

We should strive for a regulatory environment that is streamlined, balanced, and rooted in practical oversight, one that protects consumers without obstructing innovation and competition. What we don't need are more Biden-era regulations that distort the market and smother opportunity with overreach.

S.J. Res. 13 will ensure that future bank regulators cannot repeat this ill-conceived rulemaking, and that financial institutions can continue to make strategic, innovative decisions that will ultimately benefit American consumers.

Also, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31, providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Biden EPA relating to review of final rule classification of major sources as area sources under the Clean Air Act.

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lays out stringent compliance standards for facilities emitting over 10 tons of a single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons of an aggregate. Facilities below those thresholds are classified as area sources and subject to more flexible requirements.

In 2020, under President Trump, the EPA adopted a more rational approach allowing facilities that significantly reduced their emissions to be reclassified as area sources. This commonsense change rewarded emissions improvements and reduced unnecessary regulatory burdens on American manufacturers and energy producers.

To no one's surprise, the Biden administration reversed course by reimposing the outdated and rigid ``once in, always in'' policy. This framework permanently locks facilities into strict major-source status, even if they make substantial efforts to reduce harmful emissions. That is not only unfair, it discourages environmental progress.

Whom did the Biden administration hurt?

They hurt the chemical manufacturing sector, which includes thousands of mid-sized companies representing hundreds of thousands of jobs. These companies have invested millions in cleaner technologies and equipment upgrades. Under this Biden-era EPA rule, their investments will not be rewarded with a lighter regulatory touch. In fact, despite upgrades

to reduce emissions, they will continue to face the same higher regulatory costs.

Moreover, there is the pulp and paper industry, a critical employer in States like Georgia, Wisconsin, and Maine. Mills that switch to cleaner fuels or have implemented advanced scrubber systems will receive no regulatory relief under the Biden-era EPA's ``once in, always in'' rule. In a sector that already faces stiff foreign competition and very narrow margins, the Biden administration heaped further unnecessary burdens onto this industry, jeopardizing the jobs of thousands of American workers in the process.

Additionally, there is the independent and smaller scale refiner that often lack the scale of larger competitors but serve critical regional fuel markets. They may have made substantial environmental progress in reducing hazardous air pollutant emissions, but the Biden-era ``once in, always in'' rule locks them into compliance regimes that do not reflect their improved emissions profile.

Finally, let's not forget our small and rural manufacturing facilities in communities across this country, including in my own district in New York's southern tier. These facilities include metal fabricators and food processors, many of whom have taken proactive steps to cut emissions in very good faith. Under the Biden-era EPA ``once in, always in'' rule, these improvements to reduce hazardous emissions do not matter. They will still be treated with the same costly and burdensome regulatory regime. Simply put, the Biden EPA and its ``once in, always in'' rule not only disincentivizes innovation and cleaner operations, but it also threatens plant closures and kills jobs.

Mr. Speaker, you would have to be more concerned with appeasing environmental extremists than protecting American workers to support this punitive and counterproductive regulatory framework.

Through S.J. Res. 31, House Republicans stand up for the American workers and job creators. The CRA, ensures regulatory fairness and restores real incentives for emissions reduction. Without this CRA, even the most environmentally responsible facilities are punished, trapped under heavyhanded rules that do not reflect their cleaner operation.

Upon returning to office, President Trump and House Republicans focused on restoring commonsense governance: prioritizing American jobs, economic strength, and practical solutions. S.J. Res. 31, like other measures undoing ill-advised Biden-era policies, represents a decisive step in the right direction.

Let's get back to smart, forward-thinking policies that actually serve the American people, not far left activists and D.C. bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the budget reconciliation bill is the work of 11 committees that have gone through full markup, that went through the full bipartisan process.

I sat through 27 hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I know full well that I had a front seat to the longest markup, just as my colleague did with his service on the Agriculture Committee.

That is not what we are here debating. Despite what some of my colleagues across the aisle are saying, the CRA that we are discussing right now is addressing standards for major and area sources that will actually promote cleaner and more environmentally conscious operations among manufacturers, refiners, and energy producers.

The rule implemented by the Biden administration reflects a flawed approach, one that eliminates incentives for voluntary emission reductions and imposes excessive regulatory burdens without delivering clear environmental benefits.

Under this policy, facilities that successfully reduce their actual or potential hazardous air pollutant emissions below the major source threshold are still prohibited from reclassifying as area sources. This means that even after substantial improvements, these facilities remain subject to the strictest and costliest regulatory framework forever, indefinitely.

This not only increases operational costs but also removes a key incentive for companies to invest in cleaner technologies and practices, something we should all be encouraging.

For example, take a chemical plant that emits hazardous air pollutants like benzene or formaldehyde. Under the Biden-era rule, if they invest millions in cutting-edge emissions control systems that reduce their pollution below the regulatory threshold, they get no relief from the major source permitting burdens.

The Biden-era rule entangles them in permanent red tape, discouraging innovation and undermining progress.

Under the Trump-era rules that S.J. Res. 31 would pave the way for, companies would have a financial incentive to invest in pollution control since doing so would actually reduce their compliance costs and regulatory delays. The result is cleaner air, a cleaner environment.

The reality is that most of these companies and the people who run them live in the very communities affected by emissions. They have every reason to care about cleaner air and healthier environments.

What they need is smart, flexible policy, not arbitrary and capricious restrictions that stifle growth and reduce competitiveness. S.J. Res. 31 would restore a proven framework that recognizes and rewards emissions reduction. It allows regulatory classifications to reflect a facility's current environmental impact, not a legacy status based on past emissions.

This flexibility fosters continuous improvement and aligns environmental goals with economic incentives. This is not about weakening protections. It is the contrary, actually. It is about applying regulation in a way that actually works, delivering clean air, encouraging innovation, and maintaining the strength of America's industry.

Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense path forward to a cleaner, more sustainable future, one that supports jobs, growth, and the environment.

This should be a no-brainer for my colleagues who claim to be the champions of effective environmental policy. Let's not be fooled by their rhetoric. The reality is that many on the other side of the aisle are beholden to a vocal and uncompromising wing of the environmental lobby, groups that would rather see American workers laid off, manufacturing plants shut down, and entire communities economically gutted than support balanced, commonsense regulatory reforms.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of dramatic words from my friend and colleague across the aisle about the reconciliation process. Let's take a moment to remind them of what they did when they were in the majority.

During the 117th Congress, when a Democratic-led House considered the last reconciliation bill, also known as the Build Back Better Act, the process was a little messy, to say the least. The gentleman talks about CBO scores, and it is certainly something that we are working very hard on.

Mr. McGovern, in a meeting on November 4, 2021, was reading the manager's amendment to be self-executed. His response to not having a CBO score was:

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do

everything they can to slow this process down. I will also

assure the gentleman, as he knows, that this cannot become

law and will not move forward in the Senate without a CBO

score, and that will have to happen.

Regardless if we do have a JTC score or a CBO score or what that score says, I don't think any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will vote for this bill at the end of the day.

People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones here.

In fact, this process on their side of the aisle was so messy that two separate rules had to be passed out of the Rules Committee, each one self-executing a new manager's amendment as negotiations were ongoing and changes continued to be made. It was constantly a shifting landscape and, frankly, chaos at times.

I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts won't let facts get in the way of a good story. He pounds the table over the use of same-day authority. The reality is that the first rule for Build Back Better extended what is essentially a martial law procedural lockdown of the House floor, granting broad, same-day authority that allowed the majority to jam through changes without proper scrutiny.

Let's not forget the second rule for that bill was brought to the floor and voted on the very same day. It was reported from the Rules Committee, exactly the kind of tactic our colleagues are now clutching their pearls while opposing.

The fact is that governing is hard. The process is rarely a smooth one, but the American people elected President Trump, a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and a Republican majority in the United States Senate, and gave us unified government with a clear expectation for Congress to deliver on this agenda.

The Rules Committee will continue to use the tools at its disposal to facilitate the passage of historic legislation, just as our colleagues did when they were in charge.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they love to cherry-pick the facts when it comes to the timing of committee proceedings, especially in reference to the Rules Committee's upcoming meeting. They bemoan the late start and the timing of tonight's meeting. Yet, they actively ensured one committee markup after another for the legislation before us tonight, they ran hours and hours, if not days on end.

Why did those markups run as long as they did? They ran that long because Democrats engaged in the legislative process, which is their right.

The same principle applies to the Rules Committee. On this committee we have a long tradition of meeting late into the evening to complete our work. This isn't new, and it is not unique to our current majority. It is simply how the legislative process operates when the House has its full agenda.

We need only look at the Committee's operations under Democratic control to see a long history of meetings in the dark of night. Under Democratic control of the Rules Committee, we have seen things like House Resolution 587, which the report was filed at 3:46 a.m. House Resolution 481, the report was filed at 2:09 a.m. House Resolution 597, the report was filed at 3:43 a.m. House Resolution 903, the report was filed at 2:25 a.m. For House Resolution 445 in the 116th Congress, the Committee adjourned at 12:20 a.m.

Late-night sessions are not partisan anomalies and unique to the Democrats. These are precedents that Democrats themselves have maintained for years.

Let's be clear, this is the way the Rules Committee has operated when necessary, regardless of which party holds the gavel. It is about getting the work done. In fact, tonight we may not be reporting in the dark of night at all but rather as the new day has begun. I expect Mr. McGovern to take full advantage of our unlimited debate rules in the Rules Committee to make sure that that happens, and I see my second sunrise in a couple of weeks here.

I invite my colleagues to set aside the theatrics and focus on the work at hand, and I encourage my colleagues on the other side to prove me wrong.

Once again, my colleagues across the aisle are doing what they do best. They spread misinformation, and they try to sow fear into the hearts of the most vulnerable in this country about Republicans' work through the budget reconciliation process.

Let's set the record straight. President Trump and House Republicans are working to strengthen and secure and sustain Medicaid.

Democrats, through their reckless spending and unwillingness to enact commonsense guardrails themselves, have worked to undermine this critical program. We are laser-focused on protecting the absolute most vulnerable among us, Americans with disabilities, pregnant women, children, and our beloved seniors, by putting in place commonsense guardrails to ensure that those truly in need always get the care that they deserve. That means making sure that precious Medicaid resources go to the living, breathing Americans who actually need the care, not bureaucratic bloat, fraud, or people that have come into this country illegally and have been put on this system.

We are also ensuring Medicaid's long-term sustainability by rolling past costly Biden-era regulations that are driving up the program's price tag by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Let's be clear, Medicaid should always serve American citizens first and foremost, and that is why reinforcing citizenship verification, another commonsense step that the American people believe in, not only protects the program but saves the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

Yes, we are, reintroducing Clinton-era work requirements. One of the most popular things Bill Clinton achieved in his Presidency, and he worked with Congress to get it done, was bringing commonsense work requirements to social welfare programs.

It would only apply to able-bodied adults without dependents. It is something that we should all be able to agree on. If you can work, you should work. It is a step that was once broadly bipartisan, but today, our Democratic colleagues would rather let Medicaid spiral into insolvency with no solution in sight than support a basic principle that if you are able to work, you should.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard noise from across the aisle, words like ``cruel'' and ``harsh,'' and all the hyperbole you could expect to be thrown around to score political points from their base. Let me be clear. Those labels belong not to those fighting for reform but to those who would refuse commonsense changes today and instead allow this critical safety net program to become fiscally unsustainable, leaving behind the very people that depend on it every single day.

If we want Medicaid to be there in its entirety for the next generation, for those that truly need us, who we need to be working for every day, we must act now. House Republicans are committed to doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't serve then, so I am not sure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we had to go and do a little research, but in the 110th Congress on August 1, 2007, when considering House Resolution 3162, the Democrats did indeed convene a Rules Committee meeting at 1 a.m., and they gaveled out at 3:07 a.m.

They have done exactly the same thing that we have all heard about, the ranting and raving and the waving of arms here today. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, rules for thee and not for me is typically the way this works.

We will do the work of the Rules Committee. We will continue to pass this legislation and deliver real relief for working families in this country. We have listened to a lot of rhetoric about millionaires and billionaires. It sounds like Bernie Sanders is in the Chamber, but really this is about the working people of this country.

If we do nothing and the tax cuts expire in this country, it will be a $4.5 trillion tax increase on the American people. It will cut the child tax credit in half. It will cut the standard deduction in half that puts real money into the pockets of working families. In my district, it is about $1,700 a month that the current Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivers. We deliver even more in this reconciliation package.

That might not sound like a lot to some of the people on the other side of the aisle. For my constituents, that is a couple of mortgage payments. That means real relief for working families in western New York.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to protect Americans from the heavy hand of Biden-era regulations. The slew of midnight rules forced on the American people by the last administration pose a direct harm to our Nation's economy, and it has threatened jobs.

The pieces of legislation before us today under this rule are not filler. They are quite the opposite. The resolutions passed by the Senate and here before the House are lawmaking exercises. Democrats' dismissal of these CRAs speak volumes as to their lack of care and compassion for the serious ramifications that the regulatory agenda has had on the economy, on consumer choice, and on the environment.

My Democratic colleagues certainly wouldn't want to focus our time today on these CRAs because they are part and parcel to dismantling the regulatory agenda that they wed themselves to for 4 long years under President Biden.

What was the result of their commitment in the Biden-era regulatory agenda: $450 billion in new regulatory costs on the economy. That may just be numbers on paper for a D.C. bureaucrat, but the amounts of jobs lost, manufacturing shuttered, and communities decimated for folks outside the beltway is what it is really all about.

The CRAs before us will allow Congress and the Trump administration to continue its important work of reversing harmful regulations and unleashing the promise of the American economy. I strongly support the rule before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) referred to me because the big banks hate me. They love him. They support him. They don't support me. Let's see whose side he is on.

As a matter of fact, he is here talking about not being in support of big bank mergers because he is trying so hard to get more community banks. We need more community banks, but he is a long way from getting what he is talking about.

The fact is, we really do need them because of the big bank mergers. One of the things he could do to increase having community banks that relate to the neighborhoods and relate to the people in the communities is to stop allowing these big mergers to take place.

I rise to express my opposition to S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional Review Act resolution that would rescind a rule the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has put forth to improve their bank merger application review procedures.

Consumer groups, experts, and I have long rung the alarm bell as the Federal Government rubberstamped bank mergers for decades to the detriment of competition. The result has been a growing number of banking deserts where communities lack even one bank branch.

Let's see what happens after a merger.

Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to listen to me. I want him to know what happens after the big bank mergers. They close branches. They close down branches all throughout the communities. They lay off the workers. They need less workers, and so they start laying them off. They raise interest rates and fees on their customers.

We lose relationship banking, community involvement, and a personal touch from your neighborhood bank. When these big bank mergers come in, you don't have tellers anymore. As a matter of fact, when they close down the branches, you try to get them on the telephone.

Have you tried to talk with a bank manager on the telephone with these menus that they have? They run you around from so-called extension to extension to extension. You lose all of these relationships.

In fact, while thousands of bank mergers were approved in the last few decades, the last bank merger application that regulators denied was denied in 2003, 22 years ago.

Meanwhile, community banks have disappeared as the number of banks declined from more than 18,000 in 1990 to fewer than 5,000 today. Meanwhile, the biggest banks have grown much bigger through mergers and, not surprisingly, are charging customers more for banking products and services.

For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that the largest banks charged between $400 and $500 every year in additional interest and other fees for their average credit cardholders, compared to smaller community banks and credit unions.

In fact, that negative consumer impact is one of the many reasons I and more than 90 percent of public commenters urged regulators to oppose a recent Capital One and Discover merger--I think the gentleman supported that--which created the largest credit card issuer.

The Trump administration approved it anyway, and I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) did what Trump wanted him to do.

We already have enough megabanks with too much corporate power. In the mid-1990s, the 20 largest banks held 15 percent of all bank assets. Today, they hold more than 65 percent of all bank assets. The four largest megabanks hold more assets than the next 75 largest banks combined.

These megabanks are too big to manage. Take Wells Fargo, for example. They grew larger through mergers and then repeatedly violated the law and harmed millions of consumers. It got so bad that the Fed, under former Chair Janet Yellen's leadership, imposed an asset cap that remains in place to this day.

That is not easily done. Mr. Speaker, you don't hear Treasury doing that, placing asset caps, but they did that because of the way that Wells Fargo bank had just mismanaged and disregarded its customers.

To curb these rubberstamped mergers, former President Biden issued an executive order to encourage the Department of Justice and the banking agencies, including the OCC, to strengthen their merger reviews--get more information and find out what they intended to do and how they were going to provide more services.

That is what President Biden tried to get done with the OCC, to get more information. Don't just rubberstamp them. Let them merge, and do all the things that I have just alluded to.

After going through a public notice and comment process, the OCC, which oversees most large banks, including the four largest commercial banks in the country, published a final rule last year that made several commonsense improvements to its merger review procedures.

First, it eliminated a fast-track procedure where even the largest bank mergers could receive automatic approval of their mergers 15 days after their public notice comment period closed.

Second, the OCC required merger applicants to file the standard merger application to ensure they had enough information to weed out harmful mergers.

Third, the rule provided guidance, something industry often asks for. Specifically, the OCC provided guidance on how they would consider statutory factors when reviewing an application, making the process more transparent.

Rolling back these reforms is dangerous, especially at a time when DOGE is firing staff at the OCC and the other bank agencies, making it harder for them to carefully review these mergers.

I guess Elon Musk didn't stop with all of the other agencies that they were undermining and firing and laying off. They decided that they would fire staff at the OCC and the other bank agencies, making it harder for them to carefully review these mergers.

What Elon Musk was doing is consistent with what he has been doing and I guess what Trump wants him to do. They want less services. They want to make sure that they are supporting the biggest banks with these mergers, the biggest banks that are going to close down the community relationships that we have with community banks.

Moreover, I do not know why Republicans rushed this bad resolution to the floor, bypassing a committee markup. That would have been prudent. As I would point out, this resolution is actually a giant waste of time, as it would rescind a rule that was already rescinded by the OCC.

You heard me right. President Trump's Acting Comptroller of the Currency rescinded this very rule last week when it issued an interim final rule that took effect on May 15.

I am not surprised that my Republican colleagues weren't paying attention to this development, or maybe they were. Maybe they think that it was something that Trump had said to Elon Musk: Go get it done, an executive order. Maybe they felt that this was one of those executive orders that would get ruled out by the courts when we absolutely oppose him.

This resolution is only moving because Republicans needed to waste time while they hammer out how best to give $5 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires. They needed more time to figure out if tens of millions of Americans would lose Medicaid, whether millions of children would lose access to food stamps, and just how many consumer watchdogs they would fire at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It doesn't matter that the United States bond ratings were downgraded, that foreign investors are dumping U.S. investments, or that small businesses are struggling to keep their lights on.

No, Republicans are instead rescinding a rule that Trump already rescinded. I tried to give them credit for why he might be doing this, but what they have done is they have just disregarded that it has already been done. They came over to waste some time, just to make sure that that executive order perhaps won't work.

Much later tonight, when the rest of America is sleeping, Republicans are going to figure out just how many Americans they can squeeze to pay off their billionaire overlords.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad resolution being considered under the worst circumstances. I don't know why we are wasting time on this floor. I urge Members to reject this wasteful, harmful, anticompetition resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When I talk about rubber-stamping, oftentimes people don't really know what we are talking about. What I am saying is that we need to have better review. The OCC needs to be able to do everything possible to ensure that they know what these big banks are going to do and whether or not they are going to close down branches, whether or not they are going to lay off people, whether or not people are only going to be able to go to their telephone, to the internet, and somehow try to get someone to talk to.

Let me tell you what the definition of rubber-stamping is. In 2023, the OCC approved--you won't believe this--22 of 23 mergers within 60 days. That is 95 percent done in 2 months. Now, that is what you call rubber-stamping. That is what you call the big businesses, big banks being able to do whatever they want to do. All they have to do is get individuals like my friend on the opposite side of the aisle to stand up and support them with what they want to do.

Again, I will remind you that when these big mergers take place, they lay off people, and they close down branch banking. That is why we have what we call deserts that exist in communities; deserts because there is no branch banking. The big boys don't really care about branch banking. They are big, and they are doing exactly what I have indicated by making more money by laying off more people, having less services, and charging larger interest rates. I am not on the side of big banks. I am on the side of the people.

Let me continue. The Republicans may claim this resolution also prevents the OCC from updating its merger review procedures in the future. Why would they want to do that with just one banking agency? Perhaps they forgot that we have two other Federal banking agencies, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Not only will this resolution freeze the OCC's review procedures in time and arguably prevent them from even providing guidance to applicants on how their review procedures work, but it allows other Federal bank regulators, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, to update their procedures.

This would likely lead to regulatory arbitrage, where banks seek to merge with banks within a charter where the primary regulator has the weakest review standards.

In fact, we saw this kind of arbitrage in the lead-up to the 2008 global financial crisis when the weakest banks would seek to get a charter from the weakest regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, OTS, until their banks failed and Congress shut down the agency in 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we tend to come to the floor when we are producing legislation, and we talk about a lot of ways that bills have to go through different kinds of discussions, different kinds of meetings, et cetera. Oftentimes, the people don't really understand what we are saying when we talk about things like mergers, and we talk about the OCC and we talk about review and all of that.

Let me just try and talk about it in ways that people understand.

First of all, I have said and I stand by the fact that with these big bank mergers, they close down branch banking. They close down the banks in the communities. Why do they do that? They do that because they want to save money. Yet, what happens when they close down the bank?

Mr. Speaker, in many communities and in my own community, when banks were closed down, all you had was the ATM. You didn't have anybody you could talk to. When people go to the bank and they only have the ATM, what do you do when you want to talk about an automobile loan? What do you do when you want to talk about a mortgage? Who do you talk to? Who answers questions about the credit cards and about things that show up on the credit card that you don't know about? Who do you talk to?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know who you talk to. You sure can't ask the ATM about that. The ATM cannot give you the kinds of services that branches give you. The reason branches were there in the first place are when you have these big bank mergers that close down the branch bankers.

Mr. Speaker, I will elaborate on an earlier point that I made. We have seen how the largest banks have grown too big to manage through these bank mergers and then repeatedly broke the law and harmed their customers.

For example, a few years ago, when I chaired the Committee on Financial Services, we investigated Wells Fargo after they were found to have engaged in a pattern and practice of violating the law.

The bank illegally repossessed servicemembers' cars. They failed to submit a credible living will. They overcharged small business retailers for credit card services. They flunked their Community Reinvestment Act exam. They discriminated against people of color who were seeking mortgage loans.

To top it off, they pressured their employees to cross-sell their products, which led to the creation of millions of fake accounts without customers' permission so that staff could reach unrealistic sales goals.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle would want to challenge me on that because that is why we fined them when we discovered what they had done.

Can the Speaker imagine a huge bank like Wells Fargo, too big to manage, having all of this unlawful activity and leading to the creation of millions of fake accounts without customers' permission so that staff could reach these unrealistic sales goals? This is unbelievable, but this is what happened. My colleagues on the other

side of the aisle know that this happened, and they know what we had to do with Wells Fargo.

As a matter of fact, it was after all of this revelation about these unlawful activities that we were able to at least help get rid of some board members and the CEO. They all had to go.

Yet, this is what happens when you allow big, big banks to keep merging. They are too big to manage, and they give up on customer service that branch banking is all about. I bring that to the Speaker's attention so that I could make my colleagues on the other side of the aisle remember what happened with Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo was originally founded in 1852, and it grew, in part, through several bank mergers, including a 1998 merger with Northwest and an acquisition of Wachovia during the 2008 financial crisis. Wells Fargo became one of the biggest banks and the tenth largest public company in the world based on sales, profits, assets, and market value.

Yet, in our investigation, we learned that a senior official at Northwest had an aggressive cross-selling and product sales strategy, and he brought that approach to Wells Fargo. This strategy was adopted and spread throughout the business, including to former Wachovia branches and retail bank operations that Wells Fargo acquired.

Wells Fargo's CEO, John Stumpf, was fully aware that Wells Fargo's focus on this cross-selling combined with aggressive sales goals and associated incentive compensation plans could encourage employees' gaming and create compliance problems.

The bank was fined again and again until, in 2018, I pushed the bank regulators to use their full toolkit to hold a repeat offender like Wells Fargo accountable. The Federal Reserve, under former Chair Janet Yellen's leadership that I mentioned earlier about putting a cap on assets, used one of the tools regulators rarely use--and I repeat: Rarely is this used--to impose an asset cap on the bank until the bank cleaned up its act.

What it said basically was: You can't keep doing this and making money. You can't keep doing this and profiting off of the backs of your customers. You can't keep doing this and getting richer and richer, and so she put an asset cap on the bank until the bank cleaned up its act. That cap remains in place 7 years later.

Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will think of our constituents, including the servicemembers, the seniors, the students, the veterans, and our neighbors that Wells Fargo harmed when deciding if we could make bank mergers easier. If my colleagues do, they will vote ``no'' on this harmful resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider whether we should make the approval of bank mergers easier, I have another example of how mergers have led to major problems.

In 2020, the Federal Reserve and the OCC fined Citigroup $400 million over serious ongoing deficiencies relating to its risk management systems.

Now, this is very, very important. Every bank must have risk management but when they get too huge not only do they not have the proper risk management, it doesn't work very well. It was a longstanding issue that Citi had after they went through a series of mergers in the 1990s.

When the 2020 fine of $400 million was imposed, there was an article in The Wall Street Journal that explained how mergers harm the bank. They wrote: ``Regulators have long fretted that the hodgepodge of systems, a legacy of a string of deals in the 1990s that turned Citigroup into a financial powerhouse, could make the bank vulnerable to

costly and potentially damaging missteps.''

They were too big to manage.

``A recent high-profile error--Citigroup's accidental $900 million payment to creditors of cosmetics company Revlon, Inc.--gave credence to their concerns.''

That is right. The bank lacked sufficient controls because of its past mergers--too big to manage--and accidentally paid $900 million to Revlon, which quickly went into litigation.

The bank did not correct their problems. Regulators fined them again last year, but earlier this year, we learned that Citibank made another big payment error. The bank--I love this one--intended to pay a customer $280 but someone accidentally added way too many zeros to the transaction. For 90 minutes before an employee caught the mistake, one lucky customer had $81 trillion credited to their account. Unfortunately, for that customer, the bank corrected their error and far too often these kinds of mismanagement mistakes actually lead to harm for consumers.

In fact, since 2000, Citigroup has paid over--listen to this--$27 billion in fines, settlements, and consumer remediation, including 42 actions related to consumer protection violations. This includes discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants, overcharging other credit card holders, and mortgage servicing violations that could have helped homeowners avoid failure.

Again, this is the logical conclusion if we have faster mergers. We will have fewer and fewer banks that are bigger and bigger and, indeed, too big to manage.

Let me just say: When I said how much they had been fined just a moment ago, Citigroup, one could think how could they be fined that much money? How can they afford it? Where do you think they got that money from? Where do you think that money came from? Why do you think that doesn't matter to the big banks? It is just a matter of doing business.

Do you know where that money comes from? It comes from the customers. That is why we have to make sure that the customers are serviced properly, that when a big merger wants to have support from the government, that they will have been vetted in such a way that OCC understands very well: How are you going to service these customers? Are you going to close down these branch bankers? How are you going to help somebody that is looking for a mortgage? What are you going to do to the person that can't talk to the ATM because they are trying to get a car loan?

These are legitimate questions. These are legitimate answers that need to be given.

I will say this: The money does not fall out of the sky that allows them to pay millions and millions of dollars in fines. It comes from charging the customers, increasing interest rates, laying off employees so you have less employees to pay, and the services get worse and worse and worse.

The customers are the victims of these big mergers who do not want to be reviewed properly and who you support in not wanting to be reviewed properly.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am just sitting here being absolutely shocked by some of my own words when I take a look at the fines that we have charged both Citi and Wells Fargo. I see that each of them have paid $27 billion in fines, but they are still in business. Do you know why? It is because they make so much money. This is just the cost of doing business. We break the law. They are going to fine us, but we can afford it. We will go on doing what we do. This is what happened with the big, big banks that you allow to merge without understanding what they are all about and what is their commitment to the consumers.

As a matter of fact, they can afford to pay $57 billion in fines, money that they have collected from their customers. They only see this as the cost of doing business, and they keep on doing business, keep on getting fined. What are we talking about?

Listen, I am not opposed to credible mergers. Democrats just want mergers that result in a bank that will follow the law and serve the community. We want to make sure that they have the systems in place and the management to follow the law. Why? Because the consumer is on the hook and the taxpayer is on the hook; that is why.

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that I have not talked to anybody recently who was happy with their bank. They have problems getting services because the banks keep cutting back on employees and trying to push everybody to the ATM.

We can do better than this. We can understand when the mergers want to take place, who these entities are that want to merge, how huge this is going to make this bank, and what they are going to do about branch banking.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the GENIUS Act and the urgent need to strengthen this bill before the Senate votes on it later this week. The GENIUS Act would create a framework for bringing stablecoins deeper into the U.S. financial system.

For those who are unfamiliar with stablecoins, they are a type of cryptocurrency whose value is pegged to the value of another asset like the U.S. dollar. A stablecoin is similar to a bank deposit only without the guarantees of a bank behind it. A stablecoin is supposed to maintain a stable value, so a holder can redeem it to get their cash back on demand, and they can make payments with it, at least in theory.

Democrats want to work with Republicans to advance a stablecoin bill that will make stablecoins safer to use and curb the worst abuses of the industry. There are five areas that need revision.

First, a bill must include basic rules so government officials can't use stablecoin ventures to line their own pockets and so that foreign governments and giant corporations cannot use stablecoins to pay bribes to the President of the United States.

Second, the bill must prevent Big Tech and other commercial firms from issuing stablecoins, thereby preserving America's historical separation between banking and commerce.

Third, the bill must include basic consumer protections--the same as for any other financial transaction.

Fourth, the bill must safeguard national security, providing the same guardrails as other payment systems, to make sure that we are not turbocharging the financing of drug traffickers, terrorists, adversaries like North Korea, and crypto scammers.

And, fifth, the bill must have sufficient safeguards so that a stablecoin meltdown won't trigger an economywide financial meltdown.

With adequate changes in those five areas, Democrats can support the GENIUS Act.

When the GENIUS Act was before the Banking Committee in March, Senate Democrats worked hard to improve the bill. Together, Democrats introduced nearly 70 amendments. We called for votes on more than two dozen of them. Every single Democrat voted for every single amendment, and every single Republican voted no. When the bill advanced out of the committee, Democrats made clear they needed to see real changes in the bill before they could vote for it down here on the floor of the Senate.

The version that will be voted on by the full Senate as early as this Thursday makes only minor changes, leaving fundamental problems with the bill. I know that the Republican majority intends to force this vote with no real changes. That would be a mistake. If the majority wants to establish a durable legal framework for digital assets rather than just try to score political points, they will take these concerns seriously and agree to improve the bill.

Since the committee vote, President Trump's aggressive efforts to profit from stablecoins and the obvious opportunities from bribery and other influence peddling have demonstrated why it is vital that we make meaningful, substantive reforms to the bill. So let's talk for just a minute about how we got here.

During his first term, Donald Trump was extremely critical of crypto, describing crypto as ``highly volatile and based on thin air''--thin air--and highlighting that it can ``facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity.''

When he ran for office in 2024, however, the crypto industry poured enormous sums of money into Donald Trump's election, and after he was elected, crypto leaders contributed another $18 million to his inauguration. It was no surprise when Trump reversed his position and began to boost the industry, but it has been shocking to see Donald Trump move at breakneck speed to use his position as President to reap billions of dollars for himself personally and for his family.

The biggest corruption scandal in modern history is unfolding right now, and no one in here is paying attention to it. Trump has created the opportunity to trade Presidential favors like tariff exemptions, pardons, and government appointments for crypto purchases that will directly benefit himself and his family, and no one needs to speculate on what might happen. All of this is happening in full view of the public. Over his first 100 days, the President has enabled corruption on such an unprecedented scale it would truly make a two-bit dictator blush.

Most people are aware that the meme coin Trump launched ahead of his inauguration was sagging in value recently, so his recent announcement that he would host a dinner for the top 220 investors in the coin and would provide an ``exclusive bonus'' VIP White House tour for the top 25 investors suddenly boosted Trump's crypto venture. Trump has already made more than $300 million from trading fees alone and billions more in unrealized gains since he owns 80 percent of those coins.

And this is not his only crypto grift. Two weeks after the Banking Committee voted on the GENIUS Act in March, President Trump's crypto company World Liberty Financial launched its own stablecoin called USD1. Donald Junior is promoting it as ``just as safe as a bank account but without all that extra nonsense.'' USD1 was quietly launched less than a week ago, and its market capitalization now exceeds $2 billion. It is already the seventh largest stablecoin in the entire world.

As the New York Times reported last week in a front-page story about Trump's crypto corruption:

World Liberty Financial has eviscerated the boundary

between private enterprise and government policy in ways

without precedent in modern American history.

And here is the most egregious example: Trump's stablecoin was issued on the network of Binance, the largest crypto exchange in the world. Binance is an interesting choice to be Trump's partner in the stablecoin business. Back in 2023, Binance pleaded guilty to criminal charges after allowing ``money to flow to terrorists, cyber criminals, and child abusers through its platform.'' Its CEO went to jail after also pleading guilty to criminal money laundering charges. He is reportedly lobbying Trump for a pardon. What better way to buy off Donald Trump than to offer him a very favorable business deal in the stablecoin business.

The opportunity for corruption is not hypothetical. Trump has already given us a staggering example. Last week, it was reported that an Abu Dhabi investment firm MGX is using Trump's USD1 stablecoin to finance a $2 billion investment in Binance, essentially giving Trump a cut of the deal. The firm is chaired by the so-called spy sheikh of the United Arab Emirates and co-

owned by G42, a firm with extensive ties to the Chinese Government. The Trump Organization recently announced plans to build a hotel and an apartment building in the UAE, and buyers--you guessed it--will be allowed to make payments in bitcoins.

The GENIUS Act makes this kind of corruption worse. There is nothing in the bill to stop it. Instead, the bill would accelerate it. President Trump and the crypto industry are not trying to jam through this bill because they know it will make corruption and bribery harder. They are trying to jam it through because they know it will turbocharge the size and scale of the stablecoin market and help boost the value of their own stablecoin ventures, all while containing no real restrictions on the President's self-dealing.

Under the current version of the bill, President Trump is able to rake in transaction fees every time his stablecoin is used or traded. When trading is active, those fees are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Trump will also make money a second way: Everyone who owns USD1 essentially provides Trump with an interest-free loan. This means that Trump will make money on assets backing the stablecoin, and he will pay no interest to the holders of the coin. Big corporations and foreign governments can run the MGX play and use USD1 to cut Trump in on business deals or openly pay him off for tariff exemptions and other special deals, pardons, or government appointments. For a giant corporation hoping to see a prosecution dropped or a license granted, Trump's new stablecoin business creates a way to offer a payoff for the President of the United States to use his influence to get the desired outcome.

These massive opportunities for grift must be stopped, and Democrats have commonsense amendments to do exactly that. For example, we propose that the President and all other elected officials and their families be barred from owning, controlling, promoting, or otherwise participating in stablecoin business ventures. While I believe that all elected officials should be barred from buying, selling, and trading stock, investments in stablecoin companies themselves create a special risk right now. Congress is currently writing laws that will sharply increase or decrease the value of these businesses. The public should know that no one is making decisions to further their own financial interests. The current version of the GENIUS Act contains no such restrictions. The Senate should not pass a bill that facilitates Trump's breathtaking corruption and lines his pockets and welcomes other elected officials to do the same.

There are other fundamental problems with the GENIUS Act that need to be fixed before we vote.

It is crucial to prohibit the intermingling of commercial businesses and stablecoins. For centuries, our country has maintained a separation between our system of money and payments on the one side and actual businesses in the real economy on the other side. That separation helps protect the stability of our financial system, helps promote fair competition in the economy, and prevents concentrating too much economic power in the hands of just a few.

Democrats and Republicans have, time and again, linked arms to defend exactly this separation. For example, when Mark Zuckerberg tried to leverage Facebook to create a stablecoin in 2019, both Democrats and Republicans said: No. Run Facebook or run a stablecoin operation, but do not mix the two together. Under the GENIUS Act, however, Zuckerberg could launch his own coin as soon as the bill is passed.

This is particularly of interest to Elon Musk. He has already explained his plan to expand his social media platform X into a payment platform, X Money. He has said that he can use the reach of X so that, in a few years, his X Money and his stablecoin will be ``half of the global financial system.'' The man has vision. He and other Big Tech billionaires would be free to issue their own currencies to compete with the U.S. dollar.

There is absolutely no reason to allow this. Other bipartisan stablecoin bills have not permitted this. Blessing ``co-President'' Elon Musk's ambitions to overtake the U.S. money supply is completely unnecessary to build a well-regulated and safe stablecoin regime. Democrats have an amendment to prohibit the intermingling between nonfinancial companies and stablecoin issuers, and we should make that change before we vote on the GENIUS Act here in the Senate.

It is also important to strengthen the GENIUS Act to safeguard our national security. Stablecoins now count for more than 60 percent of crypto transactions, according to a recent public analysis from the blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis, making them the ``new kingpin of illicit crypto activity.'' The current version of the bill does little to prevent stablecoins from being exploited by terrorists, cartels, and criminals. In fact, compared to the version voted out of the Banking Committee, the current bill creates new loopholes to allow operators of so-called decentralized crypto exchanges and other services to continue circulating for noncompliant stablecoin issuers.

It is critical for service providers like crypto exchanges and custodians to maintain programs to check for illegal financial activity and for our government to be able to sanction mixers that move millions of dollars for our adversaries. It is important also that terrorists and drug traffickers know that they cannot escape sanctions enforcement by switching from dollars to stablecoins, and it is critical that stablecoin issuers be required to monitor the blockchains on which stablecoins are traded. As drafted, the GENIUS Act does not include those safeguards. Democrats have language to fix that.

We need also to ensure that the same basic consumer protections that apply when somebody pays their rent using their checking account or buys a cup of coffee with their credit card also apply to stablecoins. For example, at a bare minimum, consumers should have easy access to their money if they want to redeem their stablecoins. However, the GENIUS Act does not do that, leaving consumers exposed to potential delays, process hurdles, and junk fees.

When it comes to consumer protection, the most recent version of the bill actually got worse compared to the version that was voted on in committee. The current GENIUS Act strips out certain protections, leaving consumers exposed to fly-by-night, scammy wallet providers to hold their stablecoins. And--get this--all but the very largest stablecoin issuers get to evade auditing requirements, leaving consumers vulnerable to the type of financial fraud that is now rampant in the crypto ecosystem.

Notably, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not mentioned once in the bill despite the CFPB being responsible for enforcing our Nation's Federal consumer financial laws.

As Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in a Senate hearing shortly after DOGE attempted to shut down the CFPB, when CFPB is not on the job enforcing consumer protection laws, there is no one in the Federal Government to pick up the slack--no cop on the beat. That is exactly what the supporters of the GENIUS Act are hoping for--no one in the Federal Government who has the expertise or the budget to be a real cop on the beat. The stablecoin scammer will target every person in America, and under the GENIUS Act, they will run almost no risk of getting caught.

The current version of the GENIUS Act leaves consumers exposed to scams, fraud, and abuse. We can plug those holes and make sure that consumers are protected when making electronic payments regardless of the technology that underpins the transaction, and Democrats have amendments for that.

Finally, the GENIUS Act lacks the basic safeguards necessary to ensure that stablecoins don't blow up our entire financial system. This isn't a hypothetical risk. Circle's stablecoin dipped from $1 to 88 cents in March of 2023--2 years ago--threatening a broader run on the crypto market. But regulators bailed out Circle's and other big corporations' deposits at Silicon Valley Bank in order to prevent a banking crash. Money market funds and the repo market, which pose similar risks as stablecoins, have been bailed out twice in less than 20 years.

The threats that stablecoins pose to our economic system are real, and once

again taxpayers will be called on to bail out millionaires and billionaires--only this time, it will be the millionaires and billionaires who are fronting for cryptocurrencies.

The bill as drafted permits stablecoin issuers to invest in riskier assets, including uninsured U.S. and foreign bank deposits and repo loans and hedge funds, and allows them to engage in risky nonstablecoin activities, like private credit or derivatives trading.

At the same time, the bill constrains regulators' ability to apply capital and liquidity safeguards to limit the chances of stablecoin failures. It restricts regulators' ability to enforce the already weak requirements of the bill when a stablecoin issuer violates them, and it stacks the deck against denying stablecoin applications submitted by risky companies.

In addition, regulators would have no authority to block worrisome mergers and acquisitions even if the new stablecoin owners have a history of financial fraud or money laundering.

Let's just give an example here. Sam Bankman-Fried decides he wants to buy a stablecoin company while he is still in prison. The GENIUS Act says: Go right ahead.

Democrats have solutions to fix these financial stability weaknesses, and we should include them in the bill now. If the GENIUS Act goes forward without these changes, Donald Trump will continue to line his pockets with crypto scams while his policies continue to tank the economy for everyone else. Efforts to personally pay off government officials like the President of the United States will accelerate, and they are going to happen right out in the open. Big Tech billionaires will have even greater control over our economy. Terrorism financing and sanctions evasion risks will grow. Consumers will be at greater risk of getting cheated. Another financial crash will be more likely.

The problems with this bill are serious, but here is the thing: They can be solved. Democrats have offered solutions throughout this process, and it is not too late. We can find common ground on a reasonable framework to regulate the stablecoin market and to put those changes into the bill now. But we cannot bless Trump's corruption and put consumers, our financial system, and our national security at risk.

I yield the floor.