Floor Statements

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 Kevin Webb, a detailee from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, be granted floor privileges through October 2, 2026.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the immediate consideration of S. 5389, which the Senator from Massachusetts has requested, has given her an opportunity to blast again President Trump and his family.

World Liberty Financial is not his business; it is his children's business. This body has been very reticent, for good reason, to control the economic activities of the children of Members of the Senate. This is their business, and they have very good reason to choose to go overseas to do that business--because they were debanked in the United States for political reasons. If you have a business that has accounts in American banks and you are told you have got a week to get your money out of that bank and you are going to have to make payroll, you have got a problem.

The Trump kids had a problem because, during the last administration, they were debanked. During the last administration, oil and gas companies were debanked. Firearms companies were debanked. Digital asset banks that were banking digital asset companies and were completely solvent were forced out of business. That is what happens with people who are obsessed with bank surveillance and obsessed with power--that is what they do with it--and now we are seeing it again in

Mr. President, briefly, in response to the gentleman who just spoke, the digital asset bill we are voting on tomorrow, the Clarity Act, gives the Democrats exactly what they asked for on an ethics deal. It requires the President to divest or use a blind trust, disclosure of sales, a ban on promoting your own coin, and State AG enforcement power.

Take the win.

Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks. We will talk Clarity tomorrow, and I would like to move into closing the Senate for today and making announcements about tomorrow's schedule.

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

As if in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on September 14, 2026, by the President of the United States: Tax Convention with Croatia and Protocol Amending the Tax Convention with Croatia, Treaty Document No. 119-2. I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 849.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 15; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, 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 to resume consideration of the Byrne nomination; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Byrne nomination at 11:15 a.m. and, immediately following the vote, recess for the weekly conference meetings until 1:50 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday'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 actions.

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

Madam President, I am honored to speak today about a remarkable man who has given decades of service to Wyoming and to our Nation: Tucker Fagan.

Tucker's story begins in the New York City area, where he was raised alongside five siblings by parents who instilled in him a strong work ethic. His father, a firefighter, taught him to master whatever job he held, to be accountable no matter what, and to always keep a sense of humor along the way. That lesson would define his career.

After college, Tucker enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in the late 1960s and was assigned to F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne as a missile launch officer. It was quite a change from New York City, but the Cowboy State would soon become home, and if you see him today in his wranglers, boots, and hat, you would never guess he wasn't born to it. During his time at F.E. Warren, he mastered every detail of the missile system, from circuit breakers to hydraulic lines. That expertise caught the attention of senior military leadership during the height of the Cold War, and he was assigned to help develop a comprehensive war plan for national security.

His work eventually brought him to the Pentagon, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff selected him to lead the nuclear warfare branch. There, he became the Nation's foremost expert on our war plan, ready to walk through it at a moment's notice. At one point, he knew the exact location of every nuclear site in the world by latitude and longitude. Let me say that again: by latitude and longitude. His work also helped shape what we now know as the ``nuclear football,'' the case of critical information kept always within reach of the President.

Tucker's talent for explaining complex military strategy in plain terms drew the notice of President Ronald Reagan. In one briefing, after Tucker described his role as the expert on our war plan, President Reagan turned to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and said, ``We go to war, this is the guy I want to talk to.'' It is hard to imagine a greater compliment.

After 30 years of distinguished service, Tucker retired at F.E. Warren, the place he had come to call home. Wyoming's gain was significant. Gov. Jim Geringer recruited him to serve the State, and it was around that time that I first came to know him. As CEO of the Wyoming Business Council, Tucker helped make our State one of the most business-friendly in the country, working closely and effectively with the legislature. Like so many others who have spent time in a room with him, I was struck by how he could command attention, spark real debate, and still be one of the kindest gentlemen you would ever hope to meet.

When I ran for Wyoming's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, I asked Tucker to join my campaign. He agreed, and after we won, I asked him to serve as my chief of staff. He accepted on one condition: that he remain in Wyoming. Being a Cheyenne girl myself, I understood completely. It was an unconventional arrangement, but it worked perfectly. For my entire tenure in the House, Tucker served as my chief of staff, trusted adviser, and friend. He also led my Service Academy Selection Committee, helping identify Wyoming's best and brightest for appointment to our Nation's service academies, work he continues as I serve in the U.S. Senate.

After 8 years in the House of Representatives, I chose to not run for reelection and came home to Cheyenne. Tucker on the other hand, continued to find ways to serve Wyoming. He has been a longtime supporter of Cheyenne Frontier Days and was inducted into its Hall of Fame, quite an achievement for a man who had never ridden a horse before coming to Wyoming. He even officiated my daughter's wedding, somehow managing to work in a Mick Jagger reference, and it could not have gone any better. I have yet to find something Tucker cannot do, and believe me, I have tried.

Tucker remains active in the community to this day. This August, he will be inducted into the Air Force Missileers Hall of Fame, a fitting tribute to a career defined by expertise, dedication, and service.

Wyoming has been fortunate that the Air Force sent a young man from New York to Cheyenne all those years ago. If it were a lottery, we would have won the jackpot, though Tucker, ever modest, would likely just credit his father's advice: work hard, know your job, and never let anyone outwork you. Those of us who know him understand that his impact goes far beyond that. If he ever writes a book about his life, I will be first in line, asking for an inscription.

Thank you, Tucker, for everything you have done for our dear State of Wyoming and our beloved country.

Mr. President, the summer months--and August in particular--are always my favorite time of year. The Cowboy State shines all year, but August brings outdoor activities, family gatherings, and one of my favorite annual events: the Wyoming State Fair hosted in Douglas.

For more than 120 years, the Wyoming State Fair has drawn together the best of Wyoming's country fairs into one grand celebration. It is where you will find rodeo, good food, carnival games, and the finest of Wyoming agriculture on display. As a lifelong rancher, the State fair has always held a special place in my heart. It is a place to welcome the next generation of ranchers and honor those who have shaped agriculture in our State.

The high point of the fair is the induction ceremony for the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Today, I have the distinct honor and privilege of recognizing Ken Hamilton as he joins this prestigious group.

The Hall of Fame is synonymous with excellence--not only in one's profession, but also in their character. Ken personifies that standard, and his induction is richly deserved.

Ken grew up on his family's ranch in the Big Horn Basin, raising sheep and cattle alongside his parents Merle and Eleanor and his brother Keith. He studied animal science at the University of Wyoming, then took his education abroad through the American Farm Bureau Federation's work exchange program, spending a year in Australia as a station hand and assistant overseer.

Ken's passion of agriculture continued to grow. For 41 years, he devoted his life to Wyoming's agricultural industry and its future through his hard work, loyalty, and leadership with the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation. He began his career as a research and field assistant, before serving as director of field services, administrative assistant, and ultimately executive vice President in 2004--a position he held for 20 years until his retirement.

His influence reached far beyond the office. Ken used his knowledge and expertise to guide State and Federal agriculture policies to support local farmers and ranchers. During his time with the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, he served on numerous boards and committees. He was general manager of WFB, Inc; secretary for the Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company; and a member of the 2006 State of Wyoming Brand Task Force, the Western Region Air Partnership Dust Forum, the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, the State of Wyoming Coal Bed Methane Working Group, American Farm Bureau Federation's General Counsel Advisory Committee, and the Legal Information and Networking Committee.

Ken has spent his life advocating for Wyoming agriculture, on transportation, water rights, grazing policy, and wildfire response. His steadfast advocacy earned him the trust and respect of people across Wyoming. Just as important, he has mentored the next generation, passing along his knowledge and passion to those who will carry Wyoming agriculture forward.

I could not be more pleased to see Ken inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame this year. He joins a distinguished group of men and women who have made extraordinary contributions to agriculture in our State. The legacy he has built is truly remarkable and serves as an example for others to follow. I tip my hat to him.

I thank the Senator from Alaska for visiting about a local legislator. They are tremendously important to all of us.

Digital Asset Market Clarity Act

Madam President, yesterday I addressed this Chamber because we are wasting time we do not have to get the digital asset market structure bill passed, the bill called the Clarity Act. It is a strong bipartisan path forward that we have, and it is the best way for us to give digital assets, especially in this country, the certainty they need and ensure the United States leads on digital asset innovation.

The way to do it is through bipartisan support of this bill. And, again, this is a very good bill, a bill created out of necessity because the status quo does not work.

My friend Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and I released the Lummis- Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act together in 2022 to give the U.S. industry the regulatory clarity it needs to thrive on U.S. soil, to give consumers the confidence they need to participate in our digital economy, and give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on illicit finance and hold bad actors accountable.

That 168-page bill would become the foundation for the Clarity Act. A year later, in 2023, we added 100 pages with stronger consumer protection provisions. Yet, we got feedback from colleagues that they wanted more. So, again, we listened.

Today, this bill that was under 300 pages is more than 600 pages. That is hundreds of pages built over 11 months of daily bipartisan negotiations in windowless rooms where colleagues from both parties shared their priorities, and we worked diligently to incorporate them.

Title I alone has 33 separate Democrat-driven edits. We added 23 new sections on illicit finance at Democrats' request. Democrats secured another 30 wins in the CFTC portion of the bill. Plus, we created the three entirely new titles they wanted. And that is all before we even get to ethics, where the President bent over backwards to get my Democrat colleagues to a ``yes.''

We have 100 clear examples of compromise, and yet for some this still isn't enough. Holding out for a perfect bill stopped being principled months ago. It has become an excuse not to legislate at all, and the people who pay for that excuse aren't in this room. They are the people we are about to talk about: the digital asset industry and the consumers who wish to participate with confidence in this digital economy, not to mention the future generations who will miss out because too many in this Chamber said: Not yet. I am not ready. I have got an election in November. Don't want to do it.

The status quo in this industry doesn't work. It is not working for the digital asset industry or law enforcement or consumers.

We have already watched exchanges collapse with no functioning bankruptcy framework built for this asset class. And we have already watched ordinary people stand in line for years waiting on bankruptcy courts to claw back pennies on the dollar of what they lost.

When Celsius and Voyager went bankrupt, customer deposits didn't stay customer deposits. They became assets in a bankruptcy pool, fought over by creditors who had never even heard of the people who actually owned those assets. More than 4 million

Americans lost access to their own money in 2022 because we don't have the protections the Clarity Act puts in place, and thousands of them are still sorting through bankruptcy claims today.

That is what no regulation looks like. That is not a hypothetical or a talking point. That is real people suffering real losses, real years spent in bankruptcy court fighting for money that should never have been up for grabs in the first place.

Customers will, once again, be put in a nasty fight with Wall Street law firms that they have no hope to win.

If you believe in consumer protection, we must pass this bill to give consumers the protection in bankruptcy they deserve.

Not passing this bill means everyone in this Chamber will have to deservedly hang their heads the next time a crypto exchange collapses-- because there will be a next time, absent regulation. No one in this Chamber gets to act surprised by that.

It already happened. And if we don't get our acts together, it is going to happen again to our constituents under the exact same broken rules while we all sit here debating whether a bill with over 100 Democratic wins is still somehow not good enough.

Another FTX is not a hypothetical we are guarding against; it is a guaranteed outcome of leaving this industry with no custody rules, no consumer protections, and no consequences when a platform fails people.

And, by the way, foreign adversaries aren't just waiting around for us to finish deliberating. They are moving money through the exact gaps this bill closes--right now, today--while we hold out for something more perfect than what is already sitting on the table.

To those who have already said they are a ``no'' vote, let me be clear: A ``no'' vote isn't a statement against President Trump because he has already given you what you asked for. It is a vote to keep American consumers inside a system we already know to be flawed on a theory that the fix wasn't good enough. It is a vote to drive American innovation, American jobs, and American oversight of this jurisdiction to Singapore or the UAE or whichever jurisdiction is happy to take what we are too foolish to accept.

That is the actual choice that faces us, not Republicans versus Democrats. It is fixed or flawed. It is America leading or America sidelined.

We have served up this win for you and set it in front of you--over 100 wins in the base bill, an ethics agreement no other President in American history has volunteered. And by someone who didn't even have to give an inch but did it because he believes that much in American innovation and what this asset class can bring for generations is worth protecting.

Take it. Take it. Stop finding reasons not to.

I know that if we fail here, this doesn't come back next year or the year after that. The realistic next change at market structure legislation is likely 2030, at the earliest. In the meantime, we will lose businesses to other countries. We lose investment and jobs and tax revenue to jurisdictions moving faster than we are. We inhibit law enforcement's ability to hold bad actors accountable, and we lose our seat at the table to shape how this industry grows. At the exact same moment, we have a chance to guide it responsibly.

We didn't get here by ceding the internet to Europe, and we cannot afford to cede digital assets the same way, especially now that we have already done the hard work--5\1/2\ years--putting this bill together.

The window to lead right now is wide open. The end zone is inches away. But that window will not stay open for a body that continues to respond to opportunity with: Not yet. I have got an election. I don't want to take a stand.

Opportunity waits for no one.

Let's cinch up. Let's punch the ball into the end zone and pass the CLARITY Act now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, also known as the CLARITY Act, and about the years of work that brought us to this moment.

Now, I only have a few minutes to get started, but I am just getting wound up. I am going to talk for a little while. Then I am going to be back tomorrow, and I am going to talk about this some more because I have got a lot of pent-up things to say.

First of all, this is a very good bill--good for the country, good for consumers, and good for the people we all represent on both sides of this aisle. So, after 11 months of giving nearly everything that was asked of us, I am genuinely struggling to understand what else my colleagues across the aisle think it needs before we act.

When I was elected to the Senate in 2020, I knew I wanted to work on digital asset legislation because Wyoming's legislature was already years ahead of Washington. It was building a legal framework for digital asset companies before most of the country was even paying attention. I wanted to do everything I could to keep those companies in Wyoming and, more importantly, to keep them in America.

The person I have been most proud to work with is Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. People have raised an eyebrow for years that a Wyoming Republican and a New York Democrat have worked hand in hand on this bill, but we have become genuine friends, and I trust her.

In June 2022, we introduced the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act together--the first real attempt at a comprehensive regulatory

framework for digital assets, dividing oversight between the SEC and the CFTC and regulating stablecoins. That was a 168-page bill. We had to start by deciding whether to create a unique, new, stand-alone regulatory framework or lay digital assets over the existing framework. We chose the latter, and then we took off from there.

We reintroduced Lummis-Gillibrand in 2023. That was a 274-page bill. It contained provisions that cracked down on mixers and tumblers and crypto ATMs. It required plain-language customer agreements and regulated crypto advertising. It was a very strong bill for consumers. From a consumer protection standpoint, it had improved dramatically.

That partnership is now the foundation this bill stands on, and it is why I reject any suggestion that this bill is partisan. This bill is bipartisan. It has always been about keeping an industry we want here-- here to stay--but regulated in the right way.

In Wyoming, we used to call it ``growth on our terms.'' This bill is growth on our terms. It is growth on American terms--protecting consumers and protecting us from illicit finance.

Today, we have a 616-page bill because I have listened to my Republican and Democrat friends, incorporated their priorities, and tried to create the best bill possible. That is how we got to a 15-to-9 bipartisan vote out of the Banking Committee in May.

Now, plenty of people have told me to try to move this through on Republican votes alone and skip the headache. I have rejected that every time because the only way to get a bill through Congress that actually lasts is to build it together. We have earned support not only from every corner of the digital asset industry, but we have earned the support of major cornerstones in our financial industry, like Goldman Sachs and Fidelity.

Just this past Friday, the National Fraternal Order of Police endorsed this bill--an organization that spent months telling us this legislation would tie the hands of law enforcement investigating crypto crime. We listened and worked to secure dozens of illicit finance and anti-money laundering provisions that give law enforcement the tools they need, and they can hold bad actors accountable now. When they saw that, they came around. That is what good-faith negotiations produce.

Before any one of my Democratic colleagues tells me this bill doesn't do enough, I want to show each of you what 11 months of negotiations produce--provision after provision. I want the record to show precisely what was asked for and what we delivered.

Title I alone reflects 33 separate Democrat-driven edits, including tightening the bill's core definitions so companies can't structure their way around Federal securities laws; building a mandatory SEC ``front door'' certification process; adding anti-evasion authority so the SEC can look at the totality of facts and circumstances, rather than being boxed in by a technical loophole; cutting the annual fundraising cap from $75 million to $50 million, with a hard $200 million lifetime limit; barring felons convicted of fraud or money laundering from using this framework at all; and tightening the related persons resale restrictions from a 5-percent ownership threshold down to a 3-percent so insiders can't quietly dump tokens on the public.

We also built three entirely new titles at the Democrats' request. We added 23 additional sections combating illicit finance, including determining when a decentralized finance platform is really decentralized or whether it is just decentralized in name only, and when they are subject to the securities laws and Bank Secrecy Act requirements; sanctions compliance for DeFi platforms; new sanctions authority that can be used to target crypto platforms that facilitate money laundering to Russia, Iran, and North Korea; $150 million in new FinCEN funding and mandatory Treasury and GAO studies on mixers, foreign adversary activity, and financial stability risk; Federal protections for digital asset ATMs, consumer disclosures, Federal Trade Commission authority, and a joint SEC-CFTC financial literacy mandate.

Democrats also got more than 30 wins in the agriculture division of this bill, the CFTC portion, including a private right of action for consumer protection violations; capturing meme coins in the CFTC's jurisdiction; a stronger ``conflict of interest'' rulemaking than the House-passed bill; exchange-based consumer protection disclosures; best execution rulemaking; anti-manipulation and credit rulemakings; $150 million in CFTC appropriations; a new office of the retail digital commodity advocate; and requirements for digital commodity exchanges to recruit culturally diverse boards of directors.

This isn't a courtesy list. Every single one of those items was something my colleagues across the aisle insisted on and something Republicans agreed to because a partisan bill doesn't survive the next election, the next administration, or the next market turndown. We put what is best for American innovation ahead of politics. I am simply asking my Democratic colleagues to do the same.

Nowhere are our concessions more apparent than on ethics. When my Democratic colleagues brought their concerns to me, I didn't ignore them. In fact, I took them straight to the President, and as a sign of good faith and commitment to American innovation, President Trump voluntarily delivered the strongest set of ethics provisions in U.S. history. I put my own relationship with President Trump on the line--so did Bernie Moreno--to get a deal on ethics, and he agreed to it. No court, regulator, or statute compelled him to accept or offer any of this. He agreed to it because he believes so strongly that America, more than any other country, should be the one leading the way on digital asset innovation.

We are talking about a first-of-its-kind ban on any covered individual--the President, Vice President, every Member of Congress, every Federal judge, and their spouses issuing or sponsoring a digital asset for consideration.

He is willing to put his existing digital assets in a blind trust or to divest himself of them entirely under established ethics procedures. No sitting President has ever been asked to do such a thing, but President Trump will do it.

The Attorney General is directed to bring civil enforcement actions against any covered individual who knowingly and willfully violates the ban. Digital asset exchanges face civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation per day.

Violating officials must disgorge every dollar of profit and pay a penalty of up to 10 percent of what they receive or $500,000, whichever is greater.

That is what my Democrat friends asked for, and that is what the President gave you. President Trump said yes to a standard no one else on Earth could have forced on him, and I still hear that it is not enough. If you give a mouse a cookie--children's literature informs us--he will ask for a glass of milk, too, but we have now given our Democrat friends the entire cookie, factory, and a tanker-load of milk.

I want to be very direct with this Chamber because I am done being careful about this. I have spent my entire term working on this, and for the last 11 months, I have been stuck in windowless rooms with my friends on the other side of the aisle who have told me, over and over, that ethics would be the sticking point; that if the President put his holdings in a blind trust and if he were to accept enforcement and penalties and disclosures, that would be the signal my colleagues needed.

We got it.

Senator Moreno and I were elated. We were amazed that the President would accept this.

But it is not yet enough.

I didn't come here today to accuse anyone of acting in bad faith. I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle are acting in good faith. I came here to simply ask: What specifically is left to give that is reasonable? Tell me the section number, because you have over 100 significant wins in the base text and an ethics agreement that has more teeth than George Washington had, with no precedent in American history.

My friends, at some point, continuing to say ``not yet'' isn't cautious; it is a deliberate decision to run out the clock and kill a bill, rather than risk a ``no'' vote on the record, with constituents and industry to answer to.

I have more to say. I am going to say it. I am going to say it before we get a vote on this bill--just not today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I have been very proud to work with my colleagues and very much want to continue to work with my colleagues to make our currency work better for all Americans.

That is why, a year ago this month, Republicans passed the Working Families Tax Cut Act. It did exactly what my friend from Oregon just asked us for, which is to concentrate on how we can make our currency in our country work better for the American people. That is why we passed no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security benefits--so we can help the very working families who are struggling in this economy. Millions of Americans have taken advantage of the benefits provided them in the Working Families Tax Cut, but not a single Democrat voted for the bill--not one. So, instead of focusing on what is on our Nation's currency, I would urge my Democratic colleagues to join Republicans and focus on pocketbook issues that impact all Americans.

I might add, interestingly, that I, too, was thinking: Wow. Why would we build an arch in Washington, DC, or near Washington, DC? That sounds a little French to me, like the Champs-Elysees. I found out that it has been planned for years. It wasn't planned by President Trump to self- aggrandize. It has been planned for years, but nobody built it. Then President Trump talks to his friends who are willing to open their pocketbooks to do things that haven't been done previously but that have been planned for our Nation's Capital.

When we recognize the risk that we now put our Presidents in when we have large events like the National Press Club or, you know, a press dinner at the Hilton hotel here in town, where an attacker with guns was just about to enter a roomful of elected officials and Cabinet Secretaries and the President and the Vice President and their spouses and shoot the place up, the President recognizes we have to have a secure ballroom that we can use to entertain foreign dignitaries; in which to have special events; that has special bulletproof glass that is very expensive on the windows; and that has a foundation structure that will support all that because it is very heavy.

The design is so complementary to the White House. The design is very much in keeping with the historic facade of the White House.

It is going to be safer for elected officials and visiting dignitaries. It is going to be elegant, and it is going to be befitting of the White House campus that it sits on, in celebration of our 250th anniversary.

Come on. Let's quit attacking the person who holds the Office of President, every day with every bill, and maybe think about what he is doing for the American people, with nontaxpayer money, to make Washington, DC, something we can be totally proud of--safe, clean, and beautiful.

And why don't we, as a Congress, focus on ways to make Americans' lives better so they can keep more of their own money, so they can self-determine how they spend it, so they can maybe buy a house or help their kids buy a car or help their kids buy an education. You do that by keeping more of their dollars in their own pockets.

That is what we did last summer with the Working Families Tax Cut provision, and we can do it again this year.

So I would encourage my Democrat colleagues and friends to join us in helping the American people instead of obsessing about who is in the White House right now.

So, Mr. President, I object.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, that the postcloture time with respect to the Traynor nomination be expired, and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination immediately following disposition of the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180, or at 12 noon if no motion is made; further, that it be in order for Senator Van Hollen or his designee to make a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180 from the Foreign Relations Committee.