Floor Statements

Mr. President, Reserving the right to object, this bill would amend the funding statute for the Federal Housing Finance Agency so that the expenses of the inspector general are collected through the annual assessments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank in an amount independently determined by the inspector general.

I support independent oversight. The Inspector General Act already requires a separate budget estimate for that office, and it already lets the inspector general tell Congress if a proposed budget would impair that work.

Current law already funds this office. It has more than 100 employees and a budget of more than $50 million.

This bill goes further, though. It would make the inspector general's own determination the amount the director must collect. There is no ceiling, no reasonableness test, and no vote of Congress on this matter whatsoever.

These assessments, by the way, aren't free. They are costs on the housing finance system, and they show up in the mortgage market. We would literally be costing working Americans more money for mortgages so that a bunch of overpriced attorneys would

charge whatever they want, to do whatever work they felt necessary.

If the Senate wants to change how this office is funded, that change could include a cap, a reporting requirement, and, most importantly, a recorded vote. And for that reason, I object.

I know of no further debate on the nomination.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I am going to yield my time to my colleague from Michigan to start first--5 minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Michigan for working so well together on this bill. We don't agree on a lot. We do agree 100 percent that Ohio State has a better football team.

But, look, I think, for the people watching, Americans ultimately--whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent, you just want a government that works for you. You want a government that functions, that isn't chaotic, that is actually laser- targeted on not only fixing problems but avoiding problems. This is a huge problem that is coming up.

If you were to go back in a time machine about 26 years, in this Chamber, they passed a bill called the China Normalization Act. The idea was that if we could normalize relations with China, China would enter the World Trade Organization, and it would be absolutely phenomenal for the United States because we would get a place to make things really inexpensively. But what has happened over 25 years, 26 years is that China has built a massive military machine.

We go into meeting after meeting, and whether it is election integrity and the assault on that, whether it is the assault on our critical infrastructure, whether it is the fact that they have blatantly stolen our intellectual property--you were the Ambassador to Japan. You dealt with this every day, with the Japanese saying: Look, the threats from China are real; they are ever present.

If we only could have avoided that vote 26 years ago. I can tell you that what we are talking about here today is even more existential.

As my colleague from Michigan mentioned, it was the auto industry uniquely that built the middle class in this country.

I believe that in a future time, a future Congress, we are going to unite, Republicans and Democrats, around one simple concept: that our job here collectively is to make certain that an American citizen can graduate from high school and get a good enough paying job that they can afford a home, afford to get married, afford to start a family, be able to live in a safe community, and most importantly, retire with dignity. It seems to me that is actually the essence of the American dream. But these jobs are few and far between. They are hard to get. The auto industry can do that.

Let me show just a little chart here for my colleagues. It shows just how important the auto industry is to America--963,000 factory jobs, direct factory jobs.

In your State, I don't have to tell you--I can only imagine how many auto plants you have visited, whether it is Nissan in Smyrna, GM in Spring Hill, or Volkswagen in Chattanooga. You have autos all over your State. These are really, really good jobs. The people who work in those factories meet the definition I just said. We have to make certain, as policymakers, that we do everything possible to make certain those jobs are protected.

If you look at the entire auto industry, when you look at the supply chain--because there are a lot of pieces and parts that go into a car. It is the second largest purchase somebody will make after their home. Mr. President, 2.4 million good, high-paying jobs--these are not minimum-wage jobs; these are family-sustaining wages--and 11 million jobs when you think about the effects. In Chattanooga, TN, the fact that Volkswagen is there, you have all kinds of businesses that exist because of the employment there, because of those wages that allow people to buy homes, spend money.

Now, what is the counter? What is the threat here? What are we really doing? China understands this, I think, better than we do, honestly-- the importance of building their middle class--so what they have done over the last two decades is targeted the auto industry, not to compete in the auto industry but to conquer the auto industry, to create what I have dubbed ``automotive fentanyl'' where they create these predators that go out and don't just compete--because General Motors, Ford, Toyota--you name it--can compete with any car company on Earth. They can't compete with a country that is hell-bent on total conquest.

They now make almost four times as many cars as we do here in America. They export almost as many cars as we make here in America. While their domestic market is dropping, they are producing ever more cars. They need to feed that beast. They need to feed that machine. So what do they do? They go into countries like Germany where, when you are born, the first words from your parents are ``You have to buy a German car.'' Thirty-four percent of hybrids sold in Germany last month were Chinese--in a country that is culturally inclined to buy German vehicles. You look at countries like Ecuador. Fifty-seven percent of the new cars sold in Ecuador are Chinese vehicles. Mexico and Canada are starting to go there. All over the world, you are starting to see this total domination.

In the case of Germany again, Volkswagen Group, which is partially owned by a government entity in Germany, for the first time in their history had to lay off 150,000 workers. Why? Because they can't compete with the nation of China that is hell-bent on destroying their industries.

This is the reality of what we are talking about--$1.2 trillion in GDP. This is what is at stake.

So I will conclude with this. It is really hard to pass legislation. We know that. Our Founders wanted it that way. They wanted to make certain that two Senators from every State, big or small, would have to come together to figure out how to get to a compromise. That requires enormous effort. Introducing bills that will never pass--that is easy. We keep the clerks very busy with papers for bills that will never pass. This is a bill that has almost 100 out of 100 Senators on board. People have totally different ideological points of view, but on this, we have united, which is we cannot allow this threat to happen.

I am confident and hopeful that I can come back to you, Mr. President, next week with my colleague from Michigan and that we can pass the Connected Vehicle Security Act and that when the House comes back on November 8, that the House take up an identical version of this bill that Congressman Moolenaar and Congresswoman Dingell have been working on and that we can get this bill in the hands of the President.

I know that he feels the same way I do, which is that we are not going to let these cars into our market; we are going to make certain that we defend the U.S. auto industry.

So thank you again to my colleague for the hard work. Thank you to all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate that have provided input and have gotten us to the point where we have a phenomenal piece of legislation. I am very, very hopeful that we will absolutely get this done next week.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I just want to make it crystal clear for everybody as to what just happened.

If we had passed my colleague from Ohio's bill--the one he spent an enormous amount of time writing, the bill that he spent enormous time in lobbying support for from the House of Representatives--all we had to do was not have an objection from a Democrat Senator. That bill would have become law today, and taxpayers all over America and electricity users all over this country would have seen immediate relief. We would have advanced the ball.

The term ``do-nothing Congress'' exists for a reason. We absolutely accomplished that right now. We did nothing here in the Senate because of, again, Democrat obstruction. This bill would have done something. That is not nothing.

So I applaud my colleague from Ohio for putting the work in and for having a massive, bipartisan win.

By the way, just on policy alone in comparing the two solutions, the last thing we need is a new Federal interconnection queue to make Google pay for a transformer. My colleague from Ohio's bill would have actually required a deposit before steel is put in the ground for a new data center. The other would have required a FERC NOPR. Look that up. It is a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense.

What you saw now is just, over and over again, Democrat obstruction after Democrat obstruction so they can just put up another TV ad saying that electricity prices are high so that they can win an election. Instead, the victim of all of this is the taxpayer of the United States of America, who is going to see electricity prices continue to go up, when we could have passed a law to have solved it. Instead, it is more games after more games. Like the American people, I am sick of it, and I know they are.

For that reason, I object.

Madam President, like for you, although you are newer, there are probably a lot of things you thought about that the U.S. Senate does or doesn't do, and there is probably a process of exploration: How does all of this actually work?

And in my 18 months of sitting where the Presiding Officer is, I have really taken the time to learn, not just what the procedures of the Senate are but trying to actually understand: What were our Founders thinking when they created these processes?

So for the people in the Gallery and the people watching at home, what we are actually supposed to be doing right now is debating as to whether we should confirm Matthew Byrne to be a judge in Ohio. Yet, I guarantee you, there hasn't been a single word about whether Matthew Byrne is fit to be a Federal judge or not. And, I will tell you, he absolutely is--because one of the things that we have done as a collective body is abandoned the principles of how this place is supposed to work.

We have a vote at 2:15 p.m. today that is a cloture on the motion to proceed. I am sure everybody in the Gallery knows exactly what that means. I am sure they don't.

What our Founders intended was that, when legislation was to be considered in the U.S. Senate, that there would be a robust debate as to whether a bill should be considered or not.

And those of you watching on C-SPAN are just seeing me. What you are not seeing is what the people in the Gallery are seeing, which is that I am the only one in the Chamber.

I have never heard of a debate that existed when nobody was present to have said debate.

So it is not really a motion to end debate because debate has actually never started. So in the most ironic twist, what we are going to vote on at 2:15 today is whether we should consider this bill or not. And if the answer is that we are not, it says we should continue to debate this bill. But we have never started debating it publicly so the American people get to hear both sides of this argument, not a 30- second sound bite on X or a 45-second interview on CNN or FOX News, but an actual thoughtful debate and exchange of ideas.

We cannot have a republic if we don't follow the principles of that republic, and those principles mean that we strengthen our institutions; we follow the process as outlined.

What I am asking my colleagues to vote for at 2:15 p.m. is to say: Yes, we should consider this bill. It doesn't mean you should pass it. It doesn't mean you support it. But we should end the debate as to whether we should even consider it. That is the entirety of the vote.

From there, our process--that is right there in that book, Madam President, the one behind the Bible--says there are 30 hours of robust debate.

And I have been waiting for 18 months to hear robust debate in this Chamber. Instead, what we get is sound bite after sound bite after sound bite--speeches that were written by staff that are read in this Chamber for the idea that you can clip it for social media. That is not what the American people deserve, nor is it what they want.

But when you have been here too long, I am here to tell you, all of that becomes normal. You get to the point where it is just normal to do things a certain way.

People come in and out of committee hearings, don't listen to the witnesses. They go to some meetings, not others. They are semibriefed; they are not briefed.

Why don't we just go back to the original intent of this place?

Let's vote yes on the motion to proceed to end debate--by the way, which never started--and then have 30 hours. Senators here can come to the floor. People in the Gallery, people at home can hear an actual debate. If, for example, you think that the Clarity Act doesn't go far enough for law enforcement, let's hear one point of view, and let's hear the other side give an alternative point of view--not because you have written down talking points, but actual arguments that come from a position of knowledge.

If you think the ethics provision is too weak, let's hear the arguments from both sides.

Let's give the American people the opportunity to hear this debate. And if at the end of that, there isn't 60 votes to end the debate, then the bill dies. But if there is enough debate that has been heard, we say: OK, now it is time to actually get on the bill and actually pass it or start the process of passing it. There is an amendment process that can exist where people can offer ideas.

But here is what I will tell the Presiding Officer because I am certain, in your background, your No. 1 issue in life wasn't digital assets. You did a lot of other amazing things in your career and life and really helped people. So the idea behind that is to really understand it to know what the issues are.

But here is what we do agree on, Republicans and Democrats: This industry does need regulation. There is no regulation today for the digital assets industry. The industry is begging for regulation.

Think about how crazy that is. Typically industries are like: Yeah, you know what? Leave us alone. We don't want the government in our business.

They want clear rules of the road. They want to be able to develop innovative products that help average Americans take advantage of their being able to earn money, earn rewards on their money, be able to be more efficient when they transact. That is what working Americans want. They want to see their government work.

So we know--think about that--total unanimous support for hey, we need regulation. That is not the debate. The debate is how we do that. Well, that is what we created. We spent 18 months--18 months, including with the Presiding Officer's brother, in many meetings where we crafted a bill that started as 300 pages. It is now over 600 pages.

Part of the problem is that I don't know that everybody has read all 600 pages. They may not even know what is in the bill.

We all know the famous line: We will find out what is in the bill after we vote for it. Terrible.

We are ready to consider a bill to do what all of us agree on, which is to regulate the digital assets industry.

At 2:15 p.m., we are going to say: Let's end the debate. Let's consider this bill. Let's move this forward.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed, ending the debate, and then, since we didn't have a debate, let's actually have one before we consider final passage, and respect the institution that all of us are--at least I know I am--honored to be a part of.

With that, Madam President, I urge all my colleagues to vote yes at 2:15 p.m.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 7:30 p.m. and that all time in the recess count postcloture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 8:15 p.m. and that all time in the recess count postcloture.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Secretary's

desk: PN1104-2, John A. Goodwin in the Army, and all nominations in the Coast Guard with the exception of PN846; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 416, S. 3897.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Gillibrand substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 4850 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1525 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the Lummis substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 2677 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2196 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.