A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Addressing the Homework Gap Through the E-Rate Program".

Mr. President, I rise this evening in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 7, the Congressional Review Act resolution that would repeal the Federal Communications Commission's commonsense rule allowing schools and libraries to use E-Rate funds--``E-Rate'' stands for ``Education Rate funds''--to ensure that there is access to the educational tools of a school or a library to every child in America, and that would occur by extending out the way in which we view this program so that Wi-Fi hotspots can be provided to students and to educators so that they can use them even when they are not in the school, even when they are not in the library.

If we pass this resolution--the resolution which the Republicans are malevolently bringing out onto the floor--we are not simply undoing a regulation; we are pulling the plug on progress in our country; we are abandoning millions of students who lack the internet access needed to complete their homework, to attend class, to reach their full potential.

This repeal will widen educational disparities in our country, it will deepen the digital divide, and it will slam shut the doors of opportunity for millions of children in our country.

We should be doing everything in our power to close the homework gap that exists between rich and poor in our Nation, not reopen it, not make that homework gap even larger, making it more difficult for poor kids to get access to these educational tools they need. In this modern era, that absolutely meets the definition of a Wi-Fi hotspot. That is the society of 2025. You have to move to that era.

That homework gap is the cruel chasm that separates students who have reliable internet access at home from those who don't. It is a gap that existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was laid bare when schools closed and kids were forced to learn from kitchen tables and living rooms. For some, the transition was difficult; for others, it was impossible. For too many children, especially in low-income, rural, and Black and Brown communities, they were locked out of virtual learning because, simply, they lacked a basic internet connection.

You didn't have to worry about the families that had a good income. Those kids had internet at home when their schools were shut down during COVID. But you had to create some kind of a solution for kids who didn't have that at home.

We saw the stories of the students sitting in parking lots outside fast-food restaurants just to pick up a Wi-Fi signal strong enough to complete their assignments. We saw families choosing between paying rent and paying for broadband. We saw the urgent, indisputable need for action.

In that moment of need, Congress stepped up. We passed, at my request, $7 billion to help provide hotspots and other connectivity tools to students and educators. Demand was overwhelming in our Nation. We had a COVID shutdown. Schools were closed, and there was going to be a huge digital divide which would open up because kids in the suburbs, for the most

part, had access, but kids who were poorer--and, disproportionately, they were Black and Brown--in our Nation did not. And we are still reeling from the effect that period of time had upon young people in our Nation.

The program, as it was implemented, however, helped nearly 18 million students at 10,000 schools and libraries connect to the internet. I am very proud of that. It was a big difference in the lives of those kids. But that funding ran out, leaving millions of students across the country at risk of falling back into the digital divide.

That is why, last year, the Federal Communications Commission took steps to extend the reach of the E-Rate Program--a program that I was proud to author in 1996 in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

If I can take you back to that period of time, not one home in America had broadband. We still lived in an analog world, not a digital world. We lived in a world of dial-up internet technology. Broadband had not been deployed.

So the legislation, which I am proud to have been the House author of, along with Senators--what we did was we broke down every monopoly that existed. The telephone monopolies, the cable monopolies--they all were eliminated. Telephone companies could do what cable companies do. Cable companies could do what telephone companies do. All of a sudden, Comcast can offer phone service, and Verizon and AT&T can offer cable service. So they need to deploy broadband in order to accommodate all this information.

We are going to move very rapidly into a digital era, into a broadband era, and it happened pretty much in the blink of an eye for about 80 percent of our country. We are still working on the final 10 percent of our Nation, but for the most part, it happened by the year 2000, 2001. It was done. People had it. Broadband was deployed.

But what we did was we said to ourselves: We have got to take care of the poorest kids in our country as we move rapidly on a technological revolution. Yes, the economy is going to be absolutely exploding. In fact, about $1.5 trillion worth of private sector investment was put into that broadband expansion in just a 5-year period. It was incredible. It transformed our Nation.

A 14-year-old girl today thinks that she has an entitlement to a 65- inch screen in her living room and a little digital device on her lap at the same time. That didn't exist in the year 2000. It all happened in the blink of an eye.

Now, what would happen, though, to the kids that didn't come from suburban or wealthier families? So what I suggested was that we have a program, an education program, so that every time someone made a little phone call, there would be a little tax on it, and that tax would then create a fund. I called it the education fund, the Education Rate, and it ultimately just had a nickname called E-Rate. That is what helps to provide for internet service in schools--in schools in Harlem or Roxbury, MA, inner city, Washington, DC. That is what helps to supplement that, to make it possible for every kid to have access to the internet.

That program works, and so far, it has spent about $70 billion. It is still the largest educational technology program in the history of the United States--$70 billion, very profitable. But times change, and we learn about what has to happen as we are changing the way in which our country operates and new technologies get developed.

So, yes, we had that revolution from the 1996 act. I am very proud of it. We called the companies that got created Google, eBay, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube. I am very proud of that. We wanted a Darwinian, paranoia-inducing revolution out in the marketplace. We would no longer be tied to this old telecommunications system that Alexander Graham Bell would have recognized. No. We were moving on to the future, but with it, we had to bring along the young people in our Nation, and I mean every young person had to have access to it in their school, at their desk. So it was ensured to make sure that the schools and libraries had the connectivity which they needed. That is essentially what the E-Rate Program is all about.

But as the technology evolved, so too did the nature of education in our Nation, and today, learning doesn't end when the school bell rings. Learning follows students home, and so should internet access for everybody--everybody.

The Federal Communications Commission's decision to allow schools and libraries to lend Wi-Fi hotspots was not a radical idea; it was a responsible idea. It recognized that in the 21st century, a student's ability to succeed should not depend on whether their parents can afford a broadband subscription. It helped ensure that millions of students that relied upon the Emergency Connectivity Fund during the pandemic wouldn't suddenly lose access to crucial connectivity at home.

In other words, the Federal Communications Commission learned from what happened during the pandemic, learned from what happened when I was able to move over the $7 billion for these Wi-Fi hotspots to help kids at home get it, and they said: Well, do you know what we should do? We should just make sure that no student is left offline. We will make it a permanent program. And they passed that regulation.

You don't have to take my word for this. In study after study, it has been shown that students without access to broadband internet at home performed worse than their better educated, better connected classmates. It is not that these kids are smarter in the suburbs than the kids in the inner city. Those kids are just as smart. But you can't allow an education gap because the kids who have access are going to get a better education because they have access to the technology by which young people in our Nation get their education in the 21st century. So you have to make sure everyone gets access to it; otherwise, without access to broadband internet at home, those kids are going to perform worse than their better connected classmates. It is not that their intelligence is less than the kids in the suburbs. It is not that they wouldn't study as hard. They would. It is just that they don't have access.

The Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, has repeatedly shown that high-performing students had much better access to the internet at home. I don't think you have to be Horace Mann--the founder of the public school system in the United States--to think that that makes sense. Of course it does.

In 2023, a study of Michigan students found that a student without access to home internet earned significantly lower grades--actually, 0.6 lower on the 4.0 scale--than their connected classmates. Not because they weren't as intelligent. Not because they wouldn't have learned equally well on their device. But you need the device. You need access. You need a Wi-Fi hotspot. You need internet at home. You need something that is going to help you to compete.

By the way, we have another word for those kids. We call them the future of the 21st century in the United States of America. Kids that are 20 percent of our population, they are 100 percent of our future. We are living in a digital world, and it is a portable skill set that every child should be able to take to anywhere they want to go in the world for the rest of their lives. It will be a skill set that employs them, educates them, makes them better citizens. But you can't reach that stage if you are denying it to them when they are 6 years old, 8 years old, 10 years old, 12 years old, and expect them to be able to compete with the kids that come from wealthier families. That is what this vote is all about. It is all about that one issue.

When I was a boy, I had my books. I could take them home. My father drove a truck for the Hood Milk company. I would take my books home. The school superintendent's kids would bring their books home. I could compete against them. Books are equal. That is not the world we live in anymore. If you don't have the internet at home, the other kids essentially have their books in their knapsack. It is called their iPad. They have their home computer. They have access.

I am only here because it was books and I could compete against any kid in Malden, MA, in a blue-collar community. That is why I am a Senator. I had never even been to Washington before I got elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. That was my first visit to Washington. I am 29, 30 years old, but I have been competing because you give me the books you give the kid

whose father is the school superintendent, and I will compete against him.

As a matter of fact, I actually sit here at the desk which Jimmy Stewart--``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington''--had in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' He had never been to Washington. I had never been to Washington.

But it didn't mean you couldn't do a good job if you had access to the same tools that young people had in the best school systems in America. That is what this debate is all about. It is about ensuring that every child has access to the internet through a Wi-Fi hotspot if they need it.

If the school, the library, says we have got to help them at home, they don't have it--because that kid will fall behind the kids who have it. And it won't have anything to do with their ability, won't have anything to with their desire to be a full participant in this great American experiment.

A study using Census Bureau data estimated that individuals with greater access to the computer and internet at home spent 28 percent more hours learning than those kids without that access. I mean, do we really need a study of this? Of course not. We know that is the truth.

So as this evidence on home connectivity piles up, there is no debate: Students without access to internet at home are seriously disadvantaged compared to their classmates, plain and simple.

I identified with this because my father was a truck driver. We didn't have trips to the Himalayas. We didn't have some kind of summer school at universities to help out my brothers and me when we were 15, 16, or 17. But we didn't feel deprived because we had the same books as the kids in the suburbs, in the private schools. We had the same books; and I am going to study as hard as I can.

Today, that is not possible. If you don't have a Wi-Fi hotspot, you can't do it. If you don't have internet at home, you can't do it. You might want to do it, but you can't do it. And by the way, they know they don't have it. They can see the kids on the other side of town who have it. They know it. They are 9; they are 10; they are 11; they are 12. They know it. That is what this program is all about. It is just to say: You have got it; you have got it at home. Go to it. Be whoever you can be.

These Republicans, they are going to vote this program out of existence. This is the great equalizer. This is the access to opportunity. This is democratization of access to opportunity through education, which is supposed to be the foundation of our country.

You know, when I grew up, I would look at Abe Lincoln and his story. I would look at the movies about Abe Lincoln. He would be reading books by candlelight in his house on the prairie. That is all you needed, was the light, because the book was there. You could do it.

Well, without a Wi-Fi hotspot, there is nothing to read. Your device is not working. You are denying that ambitious, hard-working, imaginative, creative young person--by the way, disproportionately Black and Brown in our Nation--from having the same opportunities that we have provided for 250 years since the dawn of our country.

So we are putting these young people at a serious disadvantage compared to their classmates. So now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they want to just take that tool away. They want to rip the hotspots out of students' hands. Why? Let's just listen to a few of their arguments.

First, the Congressional Review Act supporters say: The hotspots rule is illegal.

This is simply untrue. It is not illegal.

In section 254 of the Communications Act, Congress provided the FCC with flexibility to adapt the E-Rate program for changing times and educational conditions. How do I know? I am the author of that provision. So when people tell me it is illegal, it is not illegal. I wrote the provision which says the Federal Communications Commission can do this for the children of our Nation.

Second, the Congressional Review Act supporters argue that the hotspots rule endangers students by allowing them to access inappropriate content, including on social media.

False. That is also not true. Under the Children's Internet Protection Act, schools and libraries receiving E-Rate dollars must ensure that hotspots block or filter images that are obscene or harmful to minors.

By the way, with all the crocodile tears coming down from my colleagues on the other side about their concern for children, I have had a children's online privacy protection act pending here in the Senate for years that gives total privacy protection to children under the age of 17 in our Nation, and we can't get it passed.

Why can't we get it passed? Because too many Republicans are concerned about what the big social media companies might say to them.

Well, where is their concern, then, for the poor child being exposed? Not there. They should be more concerned about what Meta is doing to them, what Google is doing to them, what those big companies are doing--because, under the law, it can't happen under the E-Rate dollars. It can't happen. It is illegal. We need another law to pass that makes it illegal to let the big social media companies in our country do the same thing.

If my colleagues are really so concerned about children's online privacy and safety, I urge them to support my legislation--if they care about it--because that would block it.

Third, they say that the program is wasteful.

That is false. Again, the hotspots rule limits the amount of money that can be requested by an E-Rate applicant and prohibits the duplication of the funding. It is all written into the law.

Let me be clear: This repeal will not save the taxpayer a dime. What does the resolution really do? It doesn't make our schools stronger. It doesn't make our libraries better. It doesn't improve student outcomes. It doesn't lower your taxes. It doesn't save the government money. All it does is strip away a lifeline for the children in our Nation who need it the most, that they can take it home with them, that they can study at home. That is it.

So this E-Rate expansion didn't just connect students; it connected futures. It helped make good on the promise that every child, regardless of their income, their race, their geography deserves a fair shot at learning, and that promise is worth defending. It is worth defending.

Education is a great equalizer. It is the foundation of our democracy, the engine of our economy, and the heartbeat of our shared American dream that any child, regardless of where they come from, regardless of who their mother and father is, can dream the great dreams. But we have to give them access to the tools they need in order to maximize all of their God-given abilities.

In today's world, to be cut off from the digital world is to be cut off from education. And that means that broadband is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It is an essential tool as much as a textbook or schoolbus or a lunch program. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a liberal issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is a children's issue. It is an American issue. It is who we should be. It is a fairness issue.

I urge my colleagues to not vote to deepen inequality. Instead, vote to affirm our values. Vote to defend every child's right to learn, to thrive, to reach for the stars. Let's reject this resolution and recommit ourselves to closing the homework gap so that all children have equal access to learning.

I yield the floor.

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.

Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Justice is a powerful Agency. The Attorney General heads it. Throughout the United States, there are over 90 U.S. attorneys who are the Federal prosecutors--a powerful position, a position that can make or break an individual or a corporation. Two of the most important and the most powerful are the Southern District of New York and the District of Columbia.

I come to the floor today to speak in opposition to the nomination of Ed Martin to be U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans: Closely examine this nominee's record.

Ed Martin's commentary and affiliations leave no doubt that he is unqualified to serve as the top Federal law enforcement individual for our Nation's Capital City. Nearly every day, new, disqualifying information surfaces.

Recently, ProPublica published a troubling report detailing Mr. Martin's conduct in multiple cases involving Eagle Forum, a conservative organization which has its roots in my home State of Illinois, formally led by well-known activist Phyllis Schlafly.

Within a year--within a year--of Mr. Martin becoming the head of the Eagle Forum, the board of directors of that organization fired him, in 2016, and they stated the reason: mismanagement and poor leadership.

A majority of the board also filed a lawsuit to bar him from any association with the organization. Instead of arguing his case in court, according to the ProPublica publication, Mr. Martin secretly orchestrated a social media campaign attacking the presiding Illinois judge.

Ironically, that judge, John Barberis from Madison County, IL-- directly across the river from St. Louis--was the only Republican judge sitting in that county at the time.

Mr. Martin went so far as to buy a laptop computer for a former colleague so that she could attack the judge on Facebook and ghostwrote posts for her.

Mr. Martin, who seeks to be the top Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia, urged her to ``turn up the heat with others'' on the Facebook page of this judge and to ``[c]all what [the judge] did unfair and rigged over and over'' again--Mr. Martin's instruction to his colleague.

This outrageous effort to intimidate a judge is a clear violation of ethical

norms and professional rules of conduct. It led to more than $600,000 in legal settlements or judgments against Mr. Martin or his employers.

In the Eagle Forum lawsuit, a judge held Mr. Martin in contempt of court, citing his ``willful disregard'' of a court order that barred him from interfering with the organization.

Remember, this is the President's choice to be the head U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and he is being held in contempt of court for willful disregard of a court order that barred him from interfering.

A jury found Mr. Martin liable for defamation of Phyllis Schlafly's daughter, Anne Schlafly Cori--a jury decision finding him liable for defamation--for, among other things--he shared a post on Facebook falsely claiming--listen to this--Mr. Martin shared a Facebook post falsely claiming that Anne Schlafly Cori should be charged with manslaughter in her mother's death.

Mr. Martin also has a disturbing history of downplaying the January 6 insurrection in the U.S. Capitol. He has made it a habit to attack the law enforcement officers who protected the Vice President, who sat before this Chamber, Members of the Senate, Members of the House, thousands of staffers, and visitors.

Those law enforcement individuals put their lives on the line for me and for all of us, but Mr. Martin doesn't see it that way.

He was at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 when he posted on social media, and I quote word for word what he said on January 6 about what was going on in this insurrection in the Capitol. Here is what he said:

Like Mardi Gras in DC today; love, faith, and joy. Ignore

#FakeNews.

In August 2023, he excused violence by January 6 rioters, saying:

We have to have less judgment on somebody who hits a cop.

Ed Martin, seeking the U.S. attorney's post for the District of Columbia, said of the January 6 rioters:

We have to have less judgment on somebody who hits a cop.

He continued:

I've seen people hit a cop and that doesn't make it the end

of the world.

Ed Martin, the top law enforcement officer in the District of Columbia--that is his quote.

He had the audacity to call Michael Fanone, a 20-year veteran of the Metropolitan Police Department who was nearly killed on January 6, ``a fake cop.''

``[A] fake cop.''

This disgusting and dangerous rhetoric puts at greater risk officers who already put their lives on the line every day to protect you and me and our families. This lack of respect for law enforcement is inconsistent with his goal to be the presiding U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

According to Mr. Martin, January 6 rioters who beat the cops are ``patriots''--his word; ``victims''--his word. He has also attacked prosecutors who were assigned to work on January 6 cases.

Incidentally, until he was selected for this position, he had never been a prosecutor. The top position in the U.S. Department of Justice in terms of U.S. attorneys--the District of Columbia--the man for the job never had any experience as a prosecutor.

He has also attacked the prosecutors who were assigned to work on January 6 cases. What does he call those prosecutors? ``Terrorists.'' His word. He said:

I shun them. I ostracize them. . . . These are despicable

people.

Ed Martin.

Just as alarming, Mr. Martin has close ties to Timothy Hale- Cusanelli, a January 6 rioter and Nazi sympathizer.

Look at this picture. In 2024 alone, Mr. Martin interviewed Mr. Hale- Cusanelli at least five times. In one of these interviews, Mr. Martin said:

Tim Hale is an extraordinary guy. I have gotten to know him

really well. I'd say we're friends.

Friends with a Nazi sympathizer. This is who the President believes should be the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Ed Martin now claims that despite these five interviews that we know of, he was not aware of Mr. Hale-Cusanelli's anti-Semitic commentary or penchant for donning a Hitler mustache until after he had presented him personally with an award last July.

But Mr. Martin's own words demonstrate the opposite. Just weeks before this award ceremony, where Martin gives this man who dresses up as Hitler an award, Mr. Martin excused his dressing up as ``goofing around'' and claimed he is being ``smeared and slurred'' by allegations of anti-Semitism.

Documents filed in Mr. Hale-Cusanelli's criminal trial, he was a January 6 rioter, show that he has a long history of saying horrifying things. Let me give you one of Mr. Hale-Cusanelli's quotes, this man who was referred to as an ``extraordinary leader'' by Ed Martin.

Here is what he said:

Hitler should have finished the job.

Hale-Cusanelli. He also claimed that he ``would kill''--this is so disgusting. I hate to put it in the Record, but it has to be. He also claimed he ``would kill all the Jews and eat them for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and he wouldn't need to season them because the salt from their tears would make it flavorful enough.''

This is the person that Ed Martin, the would-be prosecuting attorney for the District of Columbia, called ``an extraordinary man, an extraordinary leader.''

In a letter sent to the Judiciary Committee opposing Mr. Martin's nomination, 11 separate national Jewish organizations, representing more than 1 million people, wrote that Mr. Martin's associations are ``not only dangerous--they reveal a pattern of behavior incompatible with the responsibilities of a US Attorney, a role meant to uphold justice and [to] protect all communities, including Jewish Americans, from hate and extremism.''

On top of all of this, Mr. Ed Martin has failed to disclose to the Senate an unprecedented number of required requests for information. Of approximately 2,200 writings and remarks that he was required to submit to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he omitted at least 700--over 30 percent of his known record.

This includes his failure to disclose that he made nearly 150 appearances on networks funded and directed by the Russian Government, and interviews on Infowars--do you remember the term ``Infowars''?-- hosted by a man named Alex Jones, the rightwing conspiracy monger who falsely claimed that the Sandy Hook massacre of those little kids was false.

Just yesterday, my Judiciary Committee discovered more than 300 additional items that Mr. Martin failed to provide to the committee. This is the fifth time that Mr. Martin will be required to update his disclosures to the committee. This nominee is treating the Senate's constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on his nomination with utter contempt.

Just to put this in context, omitting over 700 items, we discovered 300 more that he failed to disclose, in the previous history of the committee--all the staff have looked closely--when it comes to omissions, Mr. Martin wins the trophy permanently. Why? Because the most in any previous case before was fewer than 10, his is over 700 failures to disclose before the committee.

Mr. Ed Martin has his own history of making his own discriminatory comments. He baselessly called his fellow panelists on CNN ``black racists,'' and he later claimed, with no evidence, Mr. Martin said, ``[I] got fired because of the crazy Black ladies on CNN that demanded I be fired because I didn't take their nonsense.''

The fact that Ed Martin feels the need to note the race and gender of the people who cross him speaks volumes about his character. And in a speech that Martin did not disclose to the Judiciary Committee, we discovered he made the following statement:

You're not racist if you don't like Mexicans.

Just last year he said in an interview:

You show me a Jewish American--

Ed Martin said--

who feels good about the Democrat Administration, and I'll

show you someone who is not really Jewish.''

How dare Ed Martin pass judgment on someone else's religious faith?

The serious concerns about Ed Martin's nomination have only been heightened by his conduct as an interim U.S. attorney. One of his first official acts after his appointment was to

fire numerous prosecutors simply for handling the January 6 cases that were assigned to them.

He has also baselessly threatened to investigate numerous nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, lawmakers, and others simply because he disagrees with them politically.

The top prosecutor in the Nation's Capital should be focused on fighting violent crime and terrorism, not threatening our First Amendment rights.

Mr. Martin's record makes it clear that he does not have the temperament, the judgment, or the experience to be entrusted with the power and responsibility of being U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

I urge my Democratic and Republican colleagues to oppose his nomination.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, Donald Trump's trade war is a gut punch to the American people. It is the biggest tax hike on families in half a century.

If Donald Trump is going to tax the American people, they have a right to know precisely how much. So, today, I am introducing legislation with Representative Raskin requiring retailers to show consumers precisely how much tariffs are increasing the prices of their products. It is no different than when your utility bill shows fees or a receipt shows if a service charge is included or not.

Specifically, the legislation that Representative Raskin has introduced in the House and I am introducing in the Senate requires large retailers to display in a ``clear and conspicuous'' way the amount that tariffs contribute to a good's final pricetag.

Our bill is about transparency. It is about being straight with consumers. It is about informing the consumers how Donald Trump's tariffs will impact the family budget. And retailers should like it because these increases in prices are not their fault; it is Trump's fault, with his tariffs.

So let the public know. And that is a secondary benefit that will make the public even more angry, and they may call their Republican Senators and Congressmen and say join with Democrats and pass some of our legislation that would repeal some of these tariffs.

The White House growls that companies with the audacity, they said-- audacity--to be honest with consumers about the cost of tariffs are being hostile and political. But this is not hostile or political at all; it is simply being honest with consumers. It is clarity. It is transparency.

It is a smart policy, so of course the White House opposes it because they don't want people to know how much these tariffs are damaging them. It is estimated that if the present tariffs go into effect, the average family will pay $4,000 more. Well, we want to let them know how much the price is increased for food, for housing, for gasoline, for groceries, for prescription drugs.

Last week, for instance, Ford announced they are increasing the price of at least three models by as much as $2,000, in part because of Trump's tariffs. Under our bill, that $2,000 price hike should be spelled out to consumers as in reality what it is--a tariff tax.

Americans deserve to know who is picking their pockets. Our bill will make clear to the American people that Donald Trump's tariffs are a painful tax eating away at their hard-earned money. It will make clear to the American people that Donald Trump's promise to ``lower costs starting on day one'' is a mirage, a fiction--a cruel fiction--all for a chaotic tariff policy that is sending our economy into a tailspin.

On those tariffs themselves, today, Donald Trump is set to announce a new supposed trade deal between the United States and the UK, the United Kingdom. We are still waiting to get the details, but this much is clear: Whatever Donald Trump's announcement with the UK looks like, it isn't a triumph of strategy; rather, it is a product of chaos. And with this President, if past is prologue, who knows if this deal will actually stick.

This is the Trump administration's credo: government by chaos. Just look at how Donald Trump is dealing with Canada, and it tells you everything you need to know about how untrustworthy his UK announcement is. First, Donald Trump says yes on tariffs with Canada; then he says no. Then he insults Canada, calls it the ``51st State.'' Moments later, he meets with Prime Minister Carney and says ``Canada loves us and we love Canada.''

No one knows what Donald Trump will say next. If this were a roller coaster, the whiplash would paralyze everybody involved. So American businesses and American consumers have no faith that the President has a design. Whatever is in front of his face that day, whatever pressure there might be on him, he reacts. And it doesn't matter if he said the complete opposite thing a day or a week earlier.

Early this morning, members of the President's own Cabinet are already lowering expectations of the deal, saying it is only ``an agreement in concept''; ``there's a lot of details to be worked out.'' And we know what happens when that happens, particularly in a Trump administration.

Donald Trump's new trade deal with the UK seems to be built entirely on quicksand. It is likely to be built on quicksand. He blows with the political winds. When people say he is too reckless, he backs off. When there is criticism of him backing off, he reintroduces the bill. So it would be hard to take anything the President says about this deal seriously because, in all likelihood, he will change his mind again.

Anti-Semitism

Mr. President, on anti-Semitism, this morning, the Anti-Defamation League issued a new report illustrating a disturbing trend I have been warning about: the rise of anti-Semitism in America. Specifically, this report looked at anti-Semitism toward Jewish Members of Congress, which has dramatically risen--something I can attest to firsthand.

Social media has become a breeding ground for anti-Semitism. But it is not just elected officials. Social media has become an easy way for hate groups to organize and proliferate their message against all sorts of communities and individuals. They go after Jewish-owned businesses. They go after synagogues. They go after families. They direct anti- Semitic slurs even against individuals who might not be Jewish.

We must not allow anti-Semitism to grow unabated in America like wild weeds. As the great poet Conor Cruise O'Brien said, anti-Semitism is a light sleeper. When there is trouble, somehow anti-Semitism always pops its head up--the Jewish people being made scapegoats, as we have been for centuries. It must be confronted at every instance. It must be rooted out.

We all play a part in fighting back against the forces of intolerance. People of all backgrounds, faiths, beliefs, and opinions have a duty to stand up and speak out against hate, no matter where it comes from.

Federal Budget

Mr. President, now, on the Trump budget, if you asked AI to come up with a Federal budget that utterly screws over average Americans, do you know what the AI would come up with? Donald Trump's latest budget proposal. So, today, let's look at Trump's so-called skinny budget a little more closely. It is hard to believe that this is a serious proposal.

If enacted, the Trump budget would completely gut public safety, something they say they want to strengthen. Trump's own FBI Director, Kash Patel, one of the most loyal Trumpites, testified in the House yesterday that the FBI can't meet its mission to keep Americans safe with the cuts in Trump's budget.

If Kash Patel, one of Donald Trump's most loyal acolytes, says this budget won't work, who else is going to come out against it? How can we take this budget seriously? If Patel is against it, so will be many other Cabinet officers, publicly or privately. How carefully was it even done? Did the people who put it out know they are slashing the FBI? The budget has sloppy and reckless written all over it, and even Kash Patel agrees.

That is not all. The Trump budget would also strangle American families. It is an all-out assault on American healthcare. Under Donald Trump's budget, America's housing crisis would go from bad to worse.

Hell will freeze over before Democrats entertain anything remotely close to Trump's budget. This budget proposal is dead on arrival in the Senate, and anything close to it will go nowhere as well.

Medicaid

Mr. President, on Medicaid and the CBO, the Republicans right now are struggling with a very basic idea that the truth sometimes hurts. In their case, the truth is that Republican policies are so deeply unpopular with the American people. Republicans are realizing that, and it has left them paralyzed.

Now that Republicans actually have to produce a bill, reality is catching up with them. No more bland words. No more: Don't worry; we will protect you. The budget shows what they are actually up to.

Yesterday, the CBO reported that no matter which scheme of Medicaid cuts Republicans are likely to choose, the result will be that millions will become uninsured. Republicans can try any which way to make their bill work, but their numbers just don't add up. There is no way for Republicans to accomplish their massive tax giveaways without devastating millions of working and middle-class people.

Even if the Republicans pass a fraction of their proposed Medicaid cuts, it still means millions will lose their healthcare. And for what? So that billionaires can get another tax break that they don't need at a time of high inflation and a possible recession? That is the definition of cruelty.

This is the fundamental problem Republicans are facing right now as their infighting continues--that their policies are deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people--not just blue State Republicans but purple and red State Republicans too. Telling the American people that you want to ax their healthcare so that extremely rich people can pay less in taxes is a horrible message that virtually hardly anyone in America agrees with, but that is precisely what Republicans are trying to do. So it is no surprise they are eating their own tails trying to figure out how to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week, I had an opportunity, as part of Veterans Appreciation Week, to speak with incredible Wyoming veterans from all across our State. I thanked them for their service and also took the opportunity to listen closely to their concerns.

On Tuesday, Senator Cynthia Lummis and I hosted a telephone townhall meeting with Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins. Also, Col. Tim Sheppard, who is executive director of the Wyoming Veterans Commission, joined us on the call.

The call was very productive and informative. Wyoming veterans shared their experience directly with Secretary Collins. They shared with us what works with the VA and how improvements can still be made. We heard many ideas for improvement. Suggestions ranged from changes to online scheduling to more flexibility for out-of-State appointments.

Secretary Collins took this feedback seriously. He himself is a veteran. He knows that the VA is too bureaucratic. He is committed to fixing it. So I am proud to partner with him to deliver the care that our veterans deserve.

On Wednesday, here in Washington, I met with 16 Wyoming Vietnam veterans. They came to town to visit their

memorial. These 16 veteran heroes come from across the State: Guernsey, Thermopolis, Powell, Casper, Cheyenne, Mountain View, Douglas, Newcastle, and Green River. Their stories of service and sacrifice are moving.

This weekend in Wyoming, we will be holding ``Welcome Home'' events across the State in Afton, Riverton, Sheridan, and Wheatland. It is a welcome home many veterans from Vietnam never really received. It is sad to report but true. This weekend, we honor all of our Wyoming veterans.

Wyoming has one of the highest per-capita rates of veterans in America. The pride in those individuals runs deep.

It is an honor to represent them here in the Senate, and I am going to continue to listen to the concerns of our veterans and work to improve the care they need and continue to honor their sacrifices.

Electric Vehicle Mandate

Mr. President, on another matter, in 2024, in November, on election day, voters demanded more economic freedom and less government overreach. President Trump and Republicans in Congress heard them. The State of California did not.

California wants to export its radical and impractical electric vehicle mandate to all 50 States. California's mandates are a progressive power grab. They dictate what cars and what trucks Americans can buy and can drive. These mandates aren't limited to California; they are calculated to control the policy of the entire Nation.

Congress must now act to protect the rights of the American people to drive the gas-powered vehicles they want to drive. Last week, House Republicans--with 35 House Democrats joining all of the Republicans-- voted to defend that freedom and to defeat this California mandate, and it is now up to the Senate to finish the job.

California mandates spread far and wide. They affect 133 million Americans--nearly 40 percent of the population of this country. Here is why: Twelve States copy the California mandate to ban gas-powered cars by 2036. Ten States copy the California mandate to ban gas-powered trucks by 2036. These include large-population States, like New York.

Even the junior Senator from California admits that California's liberal mandates affect the entire country, and he says he is very proud of it. The American people think differently.

The Washington Post reported last month that ``Americans are losing interest in EVs.'' That is the quote. The Washington Post: ``Americans are losing interest in EVs.'' Interest in owning an EV has dropped 8 percent since 2023.

The message is clear: Americans don't want these EVs even when the government tries to bribe them--bribe them--into buying them and using them. People want to buy the car and truck that works best for them and where they live and the life they lead.

The average price of an electric vehicle is $62,000, which is $16,000 more than comparable gas-powered vehicles. The California mandates that the Democrats are pushing would raise prices even more. It would also limit options.

This isn't progress. This is a policy that punishes working families, punishes farmers, punishes truckers, punishes the people that live in rural areas.

Worse, EV batteries rely on China. Eighty percent of EV battery components come from China. Republicans here in the Senate are fighting to end America's dependence on China. The California mandate supported by the Democrats makes that dependence even more dangerous. It risks our safety, it risks our security, and it risks our strategic independence.

The Biden administration used its final days in office to grant California permission to export its EV mandate across the country. They did this just 1 month before President Trump took office. They had already lost the election. They already knew the American people rejected what they stood for. Yet they still tried to push this onto the American people, and are trying to push it today.

This is midnight meddling. Senate Republicans are ready to use the Congressional Review Act to stop it. We will protect Americans' rights--the rights to purchase a gas-powered vehicle. That is what we are fighting for, and we have every right to do so.

California's mandates have already taken root in a dozen States. They affect 40 percent of all the new light-duty vehicle registrations and a quarter of the new heavy-duty vehicle registrations nationwide. They clearly affect the kinds of vehicles which will be manufactured and sold in America. These California mandates affect the cost and the availability of gas-powered cars and trucks all across the country, even in the States that do not adopt the mandates.

To my Democrat colleagues who will tolerate California controlling what Americans can drive: Do you think the American people really support what you are trying to shove down their throats? No, they don't.

No wonder the Democrats lost the election.

Are the Democrats willing to strip consumers and small businesses of their right to choose the vehicles that work for their needs and for their budgets? Do Democrats want to continue to protect the failures and the fallacies of the Green New Deal? Or for once, will the Democrats join Republicans who are trying to protect working families?

It is no surprise, then, that Republicans have become the party supporting and protecting the rights of working families. People have rejected the Democrats.

The Senate also needs to reject the cheerleading by these climate extremists for more regulations by unelected bureaucrats, but that is what the Democrats are here supporting. The Senate should use the Congressional Review Act to reject this Joe Biden midnight madness. By doing so, we would be protecting consumer choice, protecting affordability, and protecting congressional authority.

It is time to put Americans, Mr. President, back in the driver's seat.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).