Floor Statements

Mr. President, President Trump's actions to address Iran's nuclear weapons program last weekend didn't start a war; they ended a war. So I rise today to support President Trump's wisdom and leadership in decisively countering Iran's nuclear threat and, therefore, to oppose this ill-conceived joint resolution.

As a U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to Japan, I understand and respect the role that Congress plays in matters of war and peace, but I cannot and I will not support a resolution that removes the ability of the President of the United States to act decisively in defense of national interests, our allies, and our Armed Forces.

This resolution, if passed, would send a dangerous message not just to Iran's terrorist-sponsoring regime but also to every adversary who is seeking to exploit our domestic debates and internal divisions. This resolution would signal that America's resolve can be hamstrung by congressional hesitation at the very moment when clarity, unity, and strength are most needed.

I cannot state this strongly enough: President Trump acted entirely within his constitutional authority under article II and in accordance with his solemn duty to defend this Nation and to defend the American people. Operation Midnight Hammer was a targeted, strategic, and necessary use of force to eliminate immediate threats posed by the Iranian regime and its proxies. No American lives were lost or injured during this military operation, thanks to the leadership of President Trump, the advice and counsel of Vice President JD Vance, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, General Dan Caine, and the brilliant planning and flawless execution of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.

For decades, the Iranian regime has been attacking U.S. personnel, our allies, and our interests through its Revolutionary Guard, through Hezbollah and Hamas and Houthi terrorists, and through its missile programs and multiple cyber attacks. For decades, the Iranian regime has cynically violated international agreements to overtly and covertly pursue the capabilities necessary to make nuclear weapons on short notice.

The idea that the President, in the face of escalating threats, can only sit idly by until Congress can hold hearings and schedule votes is not just naive; it is reckless. This War Powers Resolution ignores the reality of modern warfare, and it would constrain the Commander in Chief at the precise moment when decisiveness is most critical. It elevates process over commonsense policy and political optics over operational necessity.

If the President had been forced to act in accordance with this resolution last week, the element of surprise would have been entirely lost, and the successful mission flown by our brave airmen would have been much different and, likely, much costlier.

Of course, Congress must be consulted. Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements. But we must not shackle our President in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line. We must not embolden the Ayatollahs in Tehran by showing division and delay because that is the path to endless wars, rather than the path to decisive victories.

President Trump acted wisely and proportionately to protect American lives. He acted to reestablish the credibility of our strategic deterrence. And he acted after decades of Iranian aggression that went largely unanswered by the previous administrations of President Joe Biden and Barack Obama. President Trump, once again, demonstrated decisive leadership in the service of peace and stability. That is the actual job of the Commander in Chief.

Let me conclude by repeating what I said at the start. President Trump's actions last weekend did not start a war. His actions ended a war. And not a single American life was lost.

We should not be here debating how to constrain effective Presidential leadership but, rather, discussing how to recognize effective leadership and support it. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 59.

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

Mr. President, today, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate will pass its first major digital asset legislation ever--the GENIUS Act. With this bill, the United States is one step closer to becoming the global leader in crypto.

The GENIUS Act establishes a pro-growth regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. This bill will cement U.S. dollar dominance; it will protect customers; it will drive demand for U.S. Treasurys; and it will ensure that digital asset innovation happens in the United States of America, not abroad.

With GENIUS, the value of stablecoins will be pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed one-to-one by cash and short-term U.S. Treasurys. This will provide certainty and confidence for more wide-scale adoption of this transformational technology. By combining the dollar's advantages with the speed and the efficiency of blockchain technology, the GENIUS Act facilitates traditional finance's adoption of crypto and ushers in a new era in payments.

The prospect of faster and cheaper payments will have far-reaching implications for our financial system. Once the GENIUS Act is law, businesses of all sizes and Americans across the country will be able to settle payments nearly instantaneously rather than waiting for days or sometimes even weeks. Put simply, stablecoins are a paradigm- shifting development that can bring our payment system into the 21st century.

This legislation establishes procedures for issuing stablecoins; it designates clear roles for Federal and State regulators; it implements standards for consumer protection; and it includes strong safeguards to deter illicit activity.

Protections show that with the passage of GENIUS, stablecoin issuers could become the world's largest holders of U.S. Treasurys by 2030. Such an

outcome would enhance our fiscal resilience, and it will cement the U.S. dollar's dominance as the global reserve currency. The positive implications of this legislation are hard to overstate.

Today will be remembered as an inflection point for innovation in the United States of America.

I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting this legislation. Particularly, I would like to thank Leader John Thune and Senators Scott, Lummis, Gillibrand, and Alsobrooks for helping to get this legislation across the finish line. I would also like to thank our wonderful staff, particularly calling out Luke Pettit, Chris Land, Catherine Fuchs, Bill Rockwood, Nick Larsen, and Chris Toppings, all of whom have put in effort night and day to make certain that this legislation is a success.

I look forward to getting the GENIUS Act signed into law in very short order.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for yielding, and reiterate that section 9, Anti-Money Laundering Innovation, was added to the GENIUS Act to enable the Federal Government to address illicit activities involving stablecoins by directing the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to establish guidance and notice and comment rulemaking relating to the factors set forth in sections 9(d)(1)-9(d)(4). Prior versions of amendment No. 2307 and/or S. 1582 provided that FinCen shall issue guidance or notice and comment rulemaking for such purposes. The drafters of amendment No. 2307 explicitly amended such provision to require that FinCen shall issue guidance and notice and comment rulemaking. While this change from ``or'' to ``and'' was made in the text of text of section 9(d) in amendment No. 2307, it was inadvertently left out of the title of the section. The congressional intent of the drafters of amendment No. 2307 was to ensure that FinCEN shall issue both guidance and notice and comment rulemaking with respect to the factors set forth in sections 9(d)(1)-9(d)(4). I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his leadership on these issues, and yield to my colleague the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I have three 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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 284, S. Res. 285, and S. Res. 286.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, June 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 130, Rodney Scott; further, notwithstanding rule XXII, at 12 noon the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Scott nomination and, following the cloture vote, the Senate vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 99, Olivia Trusty; further, if cloture is invoked on the Scott nomination, all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 1:45 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of my colleagues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Scott of South Carolina for up to 5 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of my legislation, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act--otherwise known as the GENIUS Act.

I would like to thank Senator Gillibrand for her kind comments and her hard work in this and Senator Scott, who so ably chaired our committee. And I am very pleased to say that we are at a point now where America can actually see a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework come to bear for payment stablecoins.

For too long, the lack of any such framework has forced digital asset innovation beyond our borders here in America and into foreign countries. It has jeopardized our Nation's financial leadership. And frankly, as Senator Gillibrand said, it has put American consumers at risk.

Meanwhile, our slow and outdated payment rails--frankly, rails that were developed back in the 1970s and 1980s--have failed to keep pace with many other overseas jurisdictions. To modernize our payment system and to restore our Nation's competitive edge, we must act now.

That is why I have introduced the GENIUS Act. This legislation takes a commonsense, bipartisan approach to regulating stablecoins. Allow me to concisely explain what the GENIUS Act does.

It clearly defines a payment stablecoin as a digital asset pegged to a fixed value backed by U.S. Treasurys and used for transactions.

It describes clear procedures for institutions to issue stablecoins. It establishes a regulatory regime that balances the responsibilities of both Federal and State authorities.

It implements standards that ensure safety, stability, and consumer protection. And it provides rigorous safeguards to deter illicit activity, to increase transparency, and to aid the vital work of law enforcement.

These provisions are pragmatic and forward-looking. They both protect consumers and promote innovation. And, crucially, they represent bipartisan agreement, reflecting that both Democrats and Republicans recognize the vast potential of this emerging technology.

The benefits of stablecoin innovation are immense. By reducing friction in the payment process, they can improve the speed and the efficiency of cross-border transactions.

Faster and cheaper transactions can unlock much needed working capital for American businesses and provide individuals with more effective tools for making international payments.

Moving aspects of our payment system to the blockchain has been shown to increase efficiencies in capital markets. Innovators are constantly uncovering transformative use cases, and the rapid pace of innovation will only increase with regulatory clarity.

Stablecoins also advance a vital national interest by driving demand for U.S. Treasurys. A recent report forecasts that with a well-crafted U.S. regulatory framework, stablecoin issuers could become one of the top holders of U.S. Treasurys by the end of this decade. Frankly, it could happen even sooner.

This would strengthen our fiscal position and cement the dollar status as the world reserve currency. If we fail to act now, not only will these benefits slip away, we will also fall behind in global competitiveness.

Without a regulatory framework, stablecoin innovation will proliferate overseas and not in America. And if we fail to act, Americans using this new technology will be left with no choice but to rely on foreign stablecoins that lack vital consumer protections. And, critically, inaction would surrender our leadership to the Chinese Communist Party, a party that aggressively advances its own digital currency.

We can avoid this outcome, but only if we all unite behind this legislation. In the spirit of patriotic cooperation, I want to thank Senator Scott, Senator Lummis, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Alsobrooks who cosponsored an earlier iteration of this bill and who have worked hard with me every step of the way to make this a strong bipartisan effort.

And I also extend gratitude to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported this legislation in the Banking Committee and contributed to the consensus product that we now see before the U.S. Senate. We have an opportunity to cement America's financial dominance for decades to come and demonstrate that this body can come together and pass legislation that benefits our country and its citizens.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in advancing the GENIUS Act. And I urge those watching from afar to view this critical vote for what it is, a statement of support for a vital innovative technology and a demonstration of our willingness as a body here in the U.S. Senate to work for America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague from Wyoming for the wonderful introduction that she gave. That means that I don't need to give the many, many pages of speech that I had planned. But I would like to come to one final point, and that is for the benefit of my colleagues today.

I want to take a broader view of what we are actually voting on. What we are voting on is ``cloture.'' That is a term

that is used to get on the bill, to actually have the debate that we are supposed to conduct here in the U.S. Senate. It is the beginning of debate for a bill that fundamentally supports crypto technology and innovation here in America at the most basic level.

My Democratic colleagues supported this, coming through a committee on a bipartisan basis. In fact, we had a vote of 18 to 6, a very strong movement out of committee.

Since that time, we have made a number of changes at their request. They have come back again with more requests. We are considering those changes as well. But for us to even begin to implement these changes, we are going to have to get on this bill in order to debate it and in order to incorporate the changes that have been negotiated.

I look forward to working with my colleagues should they choose to move forward on this bill. And if they don't, I want the American public and I want everybody watching today to understand that this is a vote to kill the crypto industry here in America, and it is a shame.

This is our first opportunity to deliver groundbreaking legislation to America that puts America squarely in the most competitive place we possibly could be, to lead in the area of innovation where we need to be leading. Otherwise, this would be a vote to push all of that offshore. It is a vote for our strength.

I want to thank the Senators who have helped so much: Senator Scott and Senator Lummis from our side. And I want to thank Senators Gillibrand and Alsobrooks from the Democrat side. I want to thank everybody who has worked so hard on this. And I hope that we will be able to move forward, actually get on this bill, and complete our work.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of my constituent and friend Pete Hegseth.

Last week, during his 4\1/2\ hour confirmation hearing, America saw exactly why President Trump nominated Pete Hegseth to be our next Secretary of Defense. Pete is patriotic, smart. He is an energetic leader. His priorities are our warfighters and having their backs by focusing the Department of Defense on lethality and competence rather than extraneous political and social issues. He is the type of leader that can inspire, recruit, and retain the absolute best talent America has to offer.

Despite Pete's qualifications, the mainstream media, desperate to derail President Trump and his nominees, has gone after Pete's character by airing false and unsubstantiated claims. Take, for example, the article published Tuesday, just this week, by the New York Times. Despite the salacious and misleading headline in this paper, buried beneath 13 paragraphs of slanderous allegations, the Times actually disclaims the entire story with a direct quote from the supposed victim herself

denying the allegations against Pete, saying:

There was no physical abuse in my marriage.

Yet, look at this headline--``Hegseth's Ex-in-Law Claims He Was Abusive to Second Wife''--even though, in the same article, the second wife disclaims all of this. This isn't journalism. Take a moment to think about this. This is a hit job. The New York Times intentionally ran with the salacious and debunked account, buried the truth, and distorted the lead simply to undermine President Trump and his nominee.

The New York Times is not alone, unfortunately; NBC News, The Hill, Politico, and even the Associated Press all chose to run the same salacious false headline instead of the facts.

Unfortunately, I am not surprised. This is the type of misleading-- and often unequivocally false--reporting that we have learned to expect from the left-leaning media.

The American people remember that the New York Times is the same publication that denied and suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story leading up to the 2020 election. It is the same paper that endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. The same paper that endorsed Kamala Harris in 2024.

The American people are sick and tired of the deception stemming from this alliance between the Democrat Party and the so-called mainstream media. This is yet another example of a story published with an aim to do harm and despite evidence to the contrary. It is why media has lost much of its credibility with the American people who see this article for what it is, a desperate, last-minute attempt to generate controversy where none exists.

Pete Hegseth is someone who is going to fix the Pentagon and deliver on President Trump's vision of peace through strength. He is exactly the type of leader that the Pentagon needs in the face of an increasingly complex and escalating security situation that is occurring around the world.

So while I am disappointed, I am not surprised at this 11th hour attempt by the media to raise debunked and completely discredited falsehoods simply with an aim to derail a confirmation.

I urge my colleagues to see through this noise, evaluate Pete's nomination based on the merits, which is why I plan to vote for Mr. Hegseth.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here today to discuss worrying developments in Mexico, our neighbors to the south, and to promote a solution in which we can all work together in the next Congress.

Sadly, I also need to call out actions by our own U.S. trade representative that would directly undermine American companies facing threats from Mexico by allowing the Mexican government to expropriate their properties.

Under the leadership of Mexico's previous President, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador--colloquially known as ``AMLO''--and current President Claudia Sheinbaum, the Mexican government is committing a blatant theft against a major America company and, by extension, the United States itself.

Earlier this year, AMLO launched an aggressive campaign of intimidation and ``lawfare'' to support the outright theft of assets in Mexico belonging to Vulcan Materials, an Alabama-based company that has been a trusted partner in our Nation's infrastructure development for decades. Vulcan built and operated the only deepwater port on the Yucatan Peninsula and has used it to supply the crushed limestone essential to infrastructure projects from Florida to California.

Vulcan's operations in Mexico are not just a business venture; they form

a critical link in our supply chain and a testament to the importance of American investment in Mexico.

But AMLO decided that he wanted Vulcan's assets for himself. Cloaking his true intentions under the facade of environmental claims, AMLO shut down Vulcan's operations and sent armed law enforcement and the military to intimidate Vulcan's employees. And now, under his handpicked successor, President Sheinbaum, Mexico is now seizing Vulcan's deepwater port.

President Sheinbaum now seeks to finalize this theft by declaring the property a naturally protected area.

Let's call this what it is: Corruption dressed up as environmentalism. This is not protection. It is plunder. Lending any credence to this authorization is absurd.

These actions violate international norms. They ignore contractual obligations. They trample over U.S.-Canada-Mexico Free Trade Agreement, again, an agreement where America actually gives preferential trade treatment to Mexico.

Surely America's government is standing up for her own Nation's interest in the face of this brazen misconduct by the government of Mexico, right? Sadly, no. A key reason for the current circumstances is an absence of American leadership, especially at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. America's top trade representatives--or America's top trade negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, along with our State Department, have stood idly by while AMLO and Sheinbaum have escalated their anti-trade and anti-American agenda.

Their inaction has sent a dangerous signal that the United States will allow its businesses around the world to be bullied, its laws to be ignored, and its negotiated agreements to be undermined.

And it gets worse. Now, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, we are learning that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is siding with Mexico against the interests of U.S. firms by reinterpreting trade rules in a way that will erode the rights of American investors whose property was either confiscated or expropriated.

According to news reports, USTR wants to limit the ability to seek redress by American companies whose property is expropriated.

I stand here before my colleagues in the Senate asking why neither Congress nor the U.S. companies that would be impacted by these actions were ever consulted before the USTR stealthily moved to alter the USMCA agreement in a manner that undermines American interest.

Ambassador Tai and USTR leadership need to clearly understand how negatively their actions will be viewed by this Congress. I can assure you, they will not be forgotten.

Making last minute, 11th-hour changes to U.S. trade agreements without review from Congress or the U.S. companies that would be negatively impacted is outright malpractice. It is a slap in the face of American investors and employers who have risked their capital overseas, and it will drive scarcity and inflation of critical infrastructure materials in the United States if Mexico is allowed to confiscate these assets, including a very strategic deepwater port.

The implications of Mexico's theft and the failure of U.S. trade officials to defend America's interest go far beyond Vulcan materials. They directly attack the foundational principles of reciprocal trade, investor protection, and the rule of law.

If Mexico is allowed to target, without repercussion, a company like Vulcan, one that employs thousands of Americans and has operated responsibly in Mexico for decades, that means no American business is safe in Mexico. This kind of lawlessness will shatter investor confidence in Mexico. Why would any U.S. company risk capital in a country where contracts are meaningless, regulations are weaponized, and property can be seized at the government's whim?

This erosion of trust threatens not only American jobs, but also the economic integration of North America, which many think is vital to our national security and our global competitiveness.

Let's remember what the USMCA was supposed to be: a safeguard for trade and investment, a framework to protect the rule of law, and a cornerstone of North American prosperity.

AMLO and Sheinbaum have shredded the spirit of this agreement by expropriating Vulcan's port and its property and by pursuing an anti- investor agenda. AMLO and Sheinbaum are acting like saboteurs of the partnership that binds our two nations.

Congress must respond with strength and resolve, rather than roll over under the ruse of environmentalism. The U.S. Trade Representative should follow its duty as stated on its own website to protect American rights under our trade agreements and ``ensure that American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses receive the maximum benefit under our international trade agreement.'' What USTR is contemplating now is anything but that.

That is why my colleagues and I are fully committed to passing S. 5137, the Defending American Property Abroad Act. This legislation will ensure that those who benefit from stolen American assets, whether they be individuals or governments, face substantial consequences.

The Defending American Property Abroad Act will prohibit vessels that utilize expropriated American infrastructure from ever entering U.S. ports. It will bar such facilities from U.S. trade and mandate a full accounting of these violations in the upcoming 2026 USMCA review. The Defending American Property Abroad Act will make clear to President Sheinbaum that the United States will not tolerate the theft of American property.

AMLO and Sheinbaum must understand that their actions will have serious consequences. I will not stand by as Mexico betrays its commitments and undermines decades of cooperation.

The United States must defend its companies, its workers, and its principles with unwavering strength. That is why I am calling on my colleagues to join me in urgently finalizing and passing the Defending American Property Abroad Act in the next Congress. This cannot wait.

Mexico's actions are a test of our resolve. If we fail to respond decisively, we will invite further aggression, not just from Mexico but from every foreign leader watching to see if America will defend its interests. The United States should never be bullied, stolen from, or too feckless to respond to efforts to undermine its strength and sovereignty.

And here at home, USTR leadership must immediately reverse course from its plan to renegotiate trade rules and pull the rug from under U.S. firms--a particularly disgraceful capstone, I might say, for the reputation of this outgoing administration.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, I object. Reserving the right to object, this summer, several of us made clear that, given the unprecedented lawfare by the Biden-Harris administration against President Trump, we will not consent to fast-tracking any judicial nominees before the coming election, and we are keeping our word on that.

If Democrats truly want these nominees confirmed, Senator Schumer can schedule them for votes. The truth is, they don't care enough about these nominations to do that so they are trying to confirm them this way, with the fast-track process.

Look, I have firsthand experience with this process. In 2017, Senate Democrats forced floor votes and 30 hours of postcloture time on my confirmation to be U.S. Ambassador to Japan under President Trump. So I am not standing in the way of confirmation. As promised, though, I will not fast-track judicial confirmations before the election, when the American people will get a chance to reject the politicized administration of justice that is occurring here in America right now. We clearly stated this position, and now we are following through on it. Therefore, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, these are Biden-Harris Department of Justice nominees. What is the Biden- Harris Department of Justice focused on right now? Multiple prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump.

Never before in history has a major American Presidential candidate been criminally charged, much less by his campaign opponent's Department of Justice. Yet, in the middle of this Presidential election, the Biden-Harris Justice Department has brought two different prosecutions against their Presidential election opponent. Other Democrat prosecutors have brought three other sets of charges. These cases have been timed to peak during the election.

So right now, President Biden's election opponent is on trial in five separate jurisdictions--all by partisan Democrat prosecutors, all on different charges, and all peaking right in the middle of this Presidential campaign.

This begs a simple question: Is this coordinated election interference or is this merely a coincidence?

It is beyond credulity that these charges would have been brought against anyone but President Trump--especially five different prosecutions all brought during the Presidential election. The contortions of fact and law underlying these prosecutions testify to that.

So do the political campaign promises and Presidential commands behind the prosecutions underscore this? Of course they do.

The New York Times reported in April of 2022 that President Biden told advisers that he wanted his Justice Department to prosecute President Trump. Shortly thereafter, his Justice Department dutifully appointed Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump.

When Alvin Bragg ran for district attorney, he campaigned on getting Trump. He did just that, using a made-up, never-before-pursued theory.

When Letitia James ran for New York attorney general, she said that her entire campaign was about getting President Trump. Even Democrat Representative Dan Goldman called it ``an individualized political vendetta.'' Five years later, in the middle of the campaign, she brought a baseless case for a $454 million fine--unheard of. This is a case of ``show me the man, and I will show you the crime.'' It is also blatant election interference. It is outrageous to many Americans. It violates our basic principles of blind justice and the rule of law.

I am not going to consent to the expeditious confirmation of any more Biden Department of Justice nominees until the American people get a chance to reject this politicized administration of justice.

I will say this: If these nominees were truly important to Senate Democrats, they would schedule votes on them. Senate Democrats held me for 30 hours of cloture when I came through this process. They are not doing the same here.

Therefore, I would like to reserve the right to object, and I want to withhold my objection to allow the junior Senator from Missouri to be recognized.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues from Missouri, from Alabama, and my colleague from Ohio who has led this effort.

For the reasons I stated earlier, I object.

If the Senator from Illinois would allow, I would just like to respond to two points regarding the politicization of the Justice Department.

One of them is the fact that Mr. Colangelo from the Department of Justice was moved to the State of New York to undertake subsequent State-level prosecutions. That is certainly deep involvement by this Department of Justice in the State-level prosecutions that has taken place here.

The other is the reference to the son of the sitting President and his prosecution. I will point out that this Department of Justice allowed and made certain that the statute of limitations on far more serious charges expired. That is politicization in the Department of Justice.

I yield the floor.