Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the nomination of Michelle Bowman to be the Federal Reserve Board's Vice Chair for Supervision.

Governor Bowman has served on the Federal Reserve Board since 2018 when she was confirmed as the first Governor required to have community bank experience, but during her tenure, she has consistently prioritized Wall Street over Main Street. She has weakened safeguards on the largest banks in the country and has opposed commonsense rules to promote financial stability, to protect consumers, and to drive investment in communities across this country.

Just yesterday, in another Wall Street giveaway, she voted to lift the asset cap that was placed on Wells Fargo in an effort to rein in Wells' decades-long track record of customer abuses. She did this despite the fact that there is no public evidence that Wells Fargo has substantially changed its approach to banking.

Governor Bowman's actions have already imposed serious costs on small businesses and families. It would be especially dangerous to put her in charge of further deregulating Wall Street now just as President Trump has pushed the economy to the edge of a cliff.

Democrats on the Banking Committee unanimously oppose her nomination as Vice Chair for Supervision, and I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to do the same now.

In the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve Board effectively abdicated its statutory role as a financial regulator and supervisor. As a result, the Agency was asleep at the wheel as dangerous risks built up in the financial system, especially in the subprime mortgage market. When the economy tumbled, families, small businesses, and even community banks suffered the consequences of the Fed's negligence.

Congress established the Vice Chair for Supervision position after the 2008 financial crisis in order to ensure that the Fed never again ignored its financial regulation and supervision responsibilities, but in her 6 years on the Federal Reserve Board, Governor Bowman has hacked away bit by bit at the safeguards put in place after the 2008 financial crisis. Let's take a look at her record.

Governor Bowman has weakened critical safeguards for the largest Wall Street banks. She has voted to reduce big banks' loss-absorbing capital requirements, and she has voted to undermine the stress testing framework, both of which have left big banks more vulnerable to collapse. She has also voted to allow big banks to gamble with people's deposits in financial markets, including through increased investments in hedge funds and private equity funds. These actions have allowed Wall Street banks to take on riskier bets and juice their dividends, boost their buybacks, and pump up executive compensation--all at the expense of financial stability.

Bowman also voted to deregulate massive banks with $100 billion to $250 billion in assets. That particular error in judgment came back to bite our country quickly, causing the second, third, and fourth largest bank failures in U.S. history just a few years later when these three deregulated banks--First Republic Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and Signature Bank--all failed within weeks of each other in 2023. For a while, the entire banking system teetered on the edge of collapse.

Now, instead of learning from that near catastrophe, Governor Bowman has refused to take any responsibility for her votes that led to this banking turmoil, and she has opposed commonsense rules to strengthen the resilience of large banks even after those failures.

Governor Bowman also voted to approve more than 800 bank merger applications, including Morgan Stanley's major acquisition of E*TRADE and Capital One's recent acquisition of Discover, which created the largest credit card company in America. Her lax approach to bank mergers undermines competition and increases concentration in the banking sector. That, in turn, inflicts costs on consumers and threatens the stability of the entire banking system. It also poses a direct risk to the future of community banks in this Nation.

In addition, Governor Bowman opposed even modest improvements to the Community Reinvestment Act. This is a 50-year-old law that was created to prevent racist lending practices by big banks and to ensure that all communities have access to critical financial services.

Last year, she was the only Fed Governor--the only one--to vote against a rule that would have updated the CRA regulations for the first time in nearly 30 years and would have increased banks' investments in communities of color, in rural and Native communities, and in other low- and moderate-income areas.

Beyond her deeply troubling policy record, Governor Bowman also demonstrated a worrisome lack of independence from the White House during her nomination process. For example, at her hearing, she refused to acknowledge any economic uncertainty created by President Trump's tariff policies, and she refused to concede any potential financial impact of those policies on U.S. financial stability. That refusal puts her at odds with Chair Powell, with the Fed staff, and with economic experts across the political spectrum. It was clear that Governor Bowman did not want to be seen even indirectly criticizing President Trump.

Ms. Bowman also stated that she plans to submit regulatory actions to the White House for review, which undermines the Fed's independence and all but guarantees a new deregulatory bonanza for these Wall Street banks.

She has refused to answer questions about whether she met with then- President Elect Trump or his transition team while on an official Federal Reserve-funded trip to West Palm Beach in November 2024.

Look, our economy is in a precarious moment. President Trump's disastrous mismanagement of this economy is raising costs for families, is putting jobs at risk, and is threatening to decimate small businesses across this country. Deregulating Wall Street right now would throw gasoline on Trump's economic fire. The last thing families and small businesses need is another massive financial crash.

I urge my colleagues to oppose Michelle Bowman's nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the GENIUS Act.

Analysts expect that passing the GENIUS Act could grow the stablecoin market tenfold over just the next 3 years. That would take a $200 billion market to a $2 trillion market, making it just a little bit smaller than the entire GDP of Canada.

Two weeks ago, Democrats refused to vote for the bill because it had inadequate safeguards for consumers and it posed too much risk, both for our financial stability and our national security. Democrats also voted no because the bill failed to address President Trump's blatant crypto corruption.

So here we are again. What has changed in the bill since the last vote? The answer: Not much. Its basic flaws remain unaddressed. While a strong stablecoin bill is the best possible outcome, this weak bill is worse than no bill at all.

First, corruption. It is fitting that we are voting on the GENIUS Act just a few days before President Trump hosts a ``private intimate dinner'' and a VIP White House tour for the top investors in his meme coin, many of whom remain anonymous. Buyers, including some apparently foreign investors, reportedly spent an estimated $148 million in the contest, enriching Donald Trump and his family. And yet this pay-to- play scheme is only the tip of the iceberg of the President's crypto corruption.

Trump and his family have already pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars from his crypto ventures, and they stand to make hundreds of millions more from his stablecoin, USD1, if this bill passes. It launched only weeks ago, but USD1 is already the fifth largest stablecoin in the entire world. Passing this bill means that we can expect more anonymous buyers, big companies, and foreign governments to use the President's stablecoin as both a shadowy bank account shielded from government oversight and as a way to pay off the President personally. For crooks, it is a two-for-one.

This is not a hypothetical problem. Already, an Abu Dhabi investment firm called MGX is using Trump's stablecoin to finance a $2 billion investment in the Binance cryptocurrency exchange, essentially just cutting Trump in on the deal of this enormous financial transaction. MGX is chaired by the intelligence chief of the United Arab Emirates and co-owned by a firm with extensive ties to the Chinese Government.

If Congress passes this bill, USD1 won't just be a coercive tool to pay off a corrupt President; it will be a financial instrument blessed by the U.S. Government. And this bill provides even more opportunities to reward buyers of Trump's coins with favors like tariff exemptions, pardons, and government appointments.

For months, many Democrats have pushed for commonsense ethics provisions in this bill. Unfortunately, the final bill does nothing-- nothing--to rein in the President's crypto corruption. But some supporters say: Well, that is because the corruption is already happening, and at least this bill won't make it any worse.

That is wrong. The GENIUS Act will accelerate Trump's corruption by supercharging the size of the stablecoin market and the reach and profitability of Trump's USD1. And, for the first time in American history, this bill will make our President, Donald Trump, the regulator of his own financial product.

This Congress should be a check on the President. Congress should not be making it even easier for him to line his pockets with even more shady crypto cash.

If Congress does not fix this issue here today, then it will be aiding and abetting his corruption every time President Trump's stablecoin is used to finance a corrupt deal.

Second problem: financial stability.

I am deeply concerned that this bill will directly lead to the next financial meltdown. This is not the first time that Congress has listened to the financial industry and created a weak regulatory regime for a new, innovative financial product. We have seen this story before, and we know how it ends.

Twenty-five years ago, Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act to support the obscure financial derivatives market, and almost nobody noticed. At the time, derivatives were a relatively niche financial product. Most people really didn't understand what they were or what they did. But when the derivatives industry came knocking, begging for so-called regulation, Congress was willing to oblige. After all, people said, surely some kind of regulatory framework was better than nothing.

So Congress created a weak set of rules that was loaded with loopholes, just like the industry wanted. The result was a total disaster. Derivatives moved from the edge of the financial system to the center of it. The result of that law was to massively expand the reach of the derivatives market and further integrate it into the core financial system. That bill helped set the stage for the 2008 financial crash.

Congress came back after the meltdown and cleaned up the mess in Dodd-Frank, but that was long after 10 million people lost their homes and millions more people lost their jobs and their savings.

In the last decade, we saw this story in another version and just barely avoided another disaster because of it. In 2018, Congress debated and enacted S. 2155, the bipartisan Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act right here on the floor of the Senate. Republicans and the banking industry pushed that bill, and a number of Democrats joined them as well. They voted to roll back critical post-2008 crisis reforms for some of the largest banks in the country.

Five years later--just 5 years later--three of those newly deregulated banks failed. Those three failures were the second, third, and fourth largest failures among banks in American history. For a while, it looked like we might face a run on the whole banking system. Swift action by regulators to bail out uninsured depositors and a whole lot of luck are the only reasons we

didn't face yet another financial meltdown just 2 years ago. Now here we are back to do the same thing again.

A financial meltdown triggered by crypto instability is not some alarmist, fever dream. In fact, it nearly happened just a few years ago. Crypto markets abruptly lost $2 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t''--after the collapse of several major crypto firms. In 2022, two of the largest stablecoins failed to maintain their pegs.

Luckily, these cryptocurrency markets were mostly separate from the rest of the financial system, so we avoided mass economic destruction. That ends today if we enact this bill. The GENIUS Act folds stablecoins directly into the traditional financial system, while applying weaker safeguards than banks or investment companies must adhere to.

Make no mistake, we are likely to see another financial crisis in the coming years, and we are virtually certain to see another set of wild swings in cryptocurrency values. It will be the American people who will bear the cost of a massive financial crash facilitated by the stablecoin market if Congress passes the GENIUS Act.

Third problem: If this bill passes, it will mean easier access to money for terrorists and drug cartels.

Even today, the crypto industry's own analysts are calling stablecoins ``the new kingpin of illicit crypto activity.'' According to Chainalysis, a blockchain analytics firm, stablecoins account for more than 60 percent of all illicit crypto transactions. There is a reason for this: These stablecoins are an ideal payment system that works for cartels, terrorists, sanctions evaders, and human traffickers to finance crime.

Unfortunately, the GENIUS Act massively expands the marketplace for stablecoins while failing to address the basic national security risks posed by them. The bill fails to apply anti-money laundering safeguards to exchanges and intermediaries that facilitate the movement, obfuscation, and custody of stablecoins.

The bill includes glaring loopholes that would allow Tether--which has reportedly become the cryptocurrency of choice for illicit actors because of its alleged willingness to turn a blind eye to money laundering--to now get access to U.S. markets. In fact, the bill text now contains a so-called decentralized finance loophole that allows Tether and other noncompliant stablecoins to access U.S. markets without any constraints--a loophole that does not exist today and that didn't even exist in the bill until this past weekend.

I don't want to see fentanyl traffickers or child pornographers or terrorists or countries that are trying to avoid sanctions financing their operations with U.S.-backed stablecoins. I certainly don't want to see a major expansion of access to money by America's adversaries. But if we pass this bill in its current form, that is exactly where we are headed.

Fourth problem: If this bill passes, it will allow Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to issue their own money.

The bill still permits big tech companies and other conglomerates to issue their own private currencies. Community banks have warned us that by creating a parallel, lightly regulated banking system, the stablecoin market will drain deposits from our local community banks and from the communities they serve. There will be less funding available for small businesses and households all across the country.

So if this bill becomes law, Congress will be responsible if a handful of giants take control of our money and then access and abuse troves of valuable consumer spending data. We will be responsible if small businesses struggle to access credit and if more community banks disappear.

Finally, if this bill passes, mainstream investors will be at greater risk of getting robbed and scammed. The bill jeopardizes CFPB oversight and the suite of consumer protections that people enjoy when using their Venmo app or their bank account. If you get cheated using a stablecoin, you may just be out of luck.

Our constituents will be reaching out to our offices because they have fallen victim to a stablecoin scam or have been saddled with junk fees when they redeem their stablecoin, only to discover that in many cases, there will be no recourse.

Congress should not choose to enable President Trump's egregious corruption. Congress should not fuel the next financial crash. Congress should not put consumers at risk for fraud or make it easier to engage in terrorist activities.

It doesn't have to be this way. A bill that meaningfully strengthens oversight in the stablecoin market is worth enacting. A bill that turbocharges the stablecoin market while facilitating the President's corruption and undermining national security, financial stability, and consumer protection is worse than no bill at all.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the GENIUS Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the vote we just had on the motion to proceed on the GENIUS Act.

Despite promises that the GENIUS Act's fundamental flaws would be fixed ahead of any vote, we still don't have the new bill text.

Now, many of my colleagues have made clear that they want to improve this bill and that it is important for Republicans not to jam us. Well, the Republicans decided to jam us anyway. But the Democrats have power to say no, and that is exactly what we just did.

The GENIUS Act would establish a new regulatory framework for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency whose value is pegged to the value of another asset, often, the U.S. dollar. This is a $100 billion market.

A stablecoin is very similar to a bank deposit. Its value, like the value of your deposits in a bank account, is supposed to maintain a stable value. That is why they call it a stablecoin.

But as we have learned throughout history, banking can be a really risky activity. It requires a robust regulatory and supervisory framework that protects consumers, that protects our national security, and that protects the stability of the financial system.

Democrats in the Banking Committee worked hard to improve the GENIUS Act before, during, and after we had a vote in committee on the bill. We want to strengthen the guardrails on this new financial product to make sure that it is safe and reliable.

Democrats--even Democrats who voted for the bill in committee--made it clear: The bill needs to improve significantly to win their support on the floor. But this new bill that was introduced last week and rushed to the floor this week, and that we voted on just today, lacked those guardrails.

So far, Republicans have refused to adopt changes that would apply basic consumer protection rules, like the ones the banks and other financial institutions have to follow so that their customers don't get cheated; have refused to adopt changes that would make it more difficult for cartels, terrorists, sanctions evaders, and human traffickers to use stablecoins to finance illegal activity; have refused to adopt changes that ensure that stablecoins do not destabilize our financial system and require taxpayers to bail out crypto companies when they crash; have refused to adopt changes that would prevent Big Tech billionaires from using this bill to issue their own private currencies; have refused to adopt changes that would stop Donald Trump and his family from corruptly profiting off their new stablecoin, USD1, which is already the fifth largest stablecoin in the world and has already been used to cut them in on shady, multibillion- dollar deals with foreign governments.

So what happened when the Democrats saw the new version of the bill last week? We stood together, we held firm, and we made clear that we were not giving them enough votes to get to 60 and move the bill forward. That brought Republicans back to the negotiation table over the last several days.

The lead negotiators made clear: Republicans need our votes. We will not be rushed. We will not be jammed. We will not vote on something that we haven't even seen. This issue is simply too important.

And that brings us to today. We were asked by the Republicans to take this vote without ever seeing the text of the new bill. There is no way for any Senator to know whether the final bill sufficiently protects consumers, no way to know whether the final bill prevents terrorists in rogue nations and cartels from using stablecoins to move dirty money around, no way to know whether the final bill stops Big Tech billionaires from taking over our money supply, and no way to know whether the final bill stops President Trump from making billions off his stablecoin and accepting bribes from foreign nations.

These purported fixes were negotiated behind closed doors, in the dead of night, and we don't even know for sure what they are. We need time to evaluate them carefully. This is what it looks like when Republicans try to jam the Democrats.

But the opportunity for bribery and corruption through a Trump stablecoin is not hypothetical. It is not like, well, here is something that might happen. Trump has already shown us right out in public exactly how to run the corruption play.

It was reported last week that an Abu Dhabi investment firm, MGX, is using Trump's USD1's stablecoin to finance a $2 billion investment in Binance, essentially giving Trump a cut of the deal. The firm is chaired by someone who is referred to in the industry as the ``spy sheikh'' of the United Arab Emirates and co-owned by G42, a firm with extensive ties to the Chinese Government.

I do not think that some of my colleagues fully comprehend the scale of this corruption. Donald Trump and his family have essentially started their own bank, and money from foreign governments and large corporations is already pouring in. This is not one of Trump's standard failed side hustles, like steaks or vodka or his licensing deals. His stablecoin, USD1, is the fifth largest in the world, and it is only 3 weeks old. He is set to make hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially billions of dollars, on this undertaking.

If you are seeking pardons, if you want tariff exemptions, if you want other special favors, you don't need a briefcase of cash pushed under the table; you can do it conveniently online with Donald Trump's stablecoin. How can any Senator--Democrat, Republican, or Independent-- endorse that kind of corruption? How can any Senator--Democrat, Republican, or Independent--facilitate that kind of corruption?

Over the past few months, we as Democrats have too often forgotten we still have some power, and this is our opportunity to use it. We did not vote for this bill today. We stood firm, and we demanded improvements.

I have heard from some of my colleagues that this bill will happen with or without us, and that is simply not true. We proved it today. I urge Democrats to continue to use their power and make sure that we don't sign off on a weak deal, on a bad deal, on a deal that, months from now or years from now, we say: Oh, that turned out to be a bad idea.

We can only vote for the GENIUS Act when we have a bill that protects consumers, that promotes financial stability, that protects our national defense, and that fights back against Donald Trump's aggressive and public corruption. We need to stand strong as Democrats, and if we do, we can get a

better bill and better serve the people of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no on S.J. Res. 13. President Trump promised that he would lower costs for American families on day one. He promised to cap interest rates on credit cards at 10 percent, and so what is it that the Senate is prioritizing today? Making it easier for banks to merge, raising the cost of credit for small businesses and households, and eroding banking services in local communities.

This resolution would undo commonsense provisions and improvements to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency bank merger review framework after decades of that office rubberstamping deals that have reduced competition in the banking sector and put community banks all across this country out of business.

Now, we have witnessed small banks just vanishing from our local communities over the past several decades. These are the banks that are deeply rooted in our neighborhoods, that do the painstaking local lending that many small businesses rely on.

Regulators' long record of rubberstamping bank mergers has resulted in scores of branch closures, leaving consumers with fewer choices when it comes to whom to trust with their money.

Between 2006 and 2021, the Federal Reserve approved more than 3,500 consecutive mergers without denying a single one--not even one single no. With the regulators completely asleep at the switch since 1990, the number of banks in the United States has declined from more than 18,000 to fewer than 5,000.

The biggest banks have been the beneficiaries of this consolidation because they have grown even bigger. In the mid-1990s, the 20 biggest banks in this country held a total of 15 percent of all bank assets-- the 20 biggest had 15 percent of all the assets.

Today, the top 20 hold more than 65 percent of all bank assets, and the concentration at the very top is even more extreme. The biggest four banks alone hold more assets than the next 75 banks combined.

This problem can be life or death for small businesses that can't get ahold of anyone at a big bank who understands the local economy or the nuances of their business or their credit needs.

At a big bank, you get a 1-800 number and a cookie-cutter product developed in some far-off headquarters. The problem is even more dire in low-income neighborhoods where research shows that predatory lenders and check cashers proliferate as bank consolidation increases.

Concentrating power into a few financial giants and money centers reduces competition, and it results in Americans paying higher prices for their banking services. That means higher credit card interest rates, higher fees, higher auto loan payments, and unaffordable mortgages. And when these banks become too big to fail, the entire economy feels the pain when those banks' risk-taking blows up, and taxpayers are the ones who have to foot the bill when Wall Street comes in here demanding bailouts.

In recent years, regulators started to wake up to the fact that a highly consolidated banking sector is bad for consumers and bad for our economy. Bank supervisors and antitrust enforcers have been taking a careful look at the rules that guide how mergers are scrutinized, and they finally--finally--began to apply the law, as written by Congress, and they retired the rubberstamp.

In 2024, the OCC, which oversees most of the very largest banks, finalized improvements to the bank merger framework, creating a more comprehensive process and a more transparent process. First, the new rules will end the practice that allows certain mergers to be automatically approved just 15 days after the closing of the public comment period.

This resolution would reinstitute automatic approval just as Elon Musk's, his DOGE, guts the very staff that are reviewing these bank merger applications. It is a dangerous combination to actually say: We are going to do these automatic approvals, give them a really short period of time, and then cut the number of people who are there in the regulatory Agencies to be able to review the mergers.

Second, the updated rules also ensure that all applicants provide regulators with the information they need to weed out harmful transactions and to ensure that the OCC is more transparent about how it weighs certain factors when making a determination for whether to approve or deny a merger, and all that would go away.

The OCC's final rule is a commonsense step to revitalize the bank merger framework after decades of lax review. Passing this resolution would turn back the clock, raise costs for Americans at a time when they can least afford it, and choke off credit even more for the small businesses that need it most.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on S.J. Res. 13. It is bad for consumers, bad for small businesses, and, ultimately, that means it is bad for our economy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want to note that President Trump is pushing our economy off a cliff. Over the past week, the President has told families to brace for more expensive toys for Christmas and he continues to lie about the fact that grocery prices are actually going up. He has managed to shrink the economy in his first 100 days and experts from across the spectrum are already predicting a recession.

He is also working to tear our Federal Government apart. And while President Trump works to burn down our economy and our future, the Senate is still chugging along with business as usual in confirming the President's nominees to lead the Agencies that he is actively trying to destroy.

My litmus test for any executive branch nominee is will they enforce the law and uphold our Constitution or will they simply bend the knee to the orders of President Trump? I am worried that Mr. Pettit will simply go along with the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda, instead of fighting to protect consumers and to ensure financial stability.

I know that Mr. Molinaro wants to improve the public transportation system and support public transit workers. I appreciate that. I genuinely do. I have no doubt about it. But it seems clear that the White House and Elon Musk's DOGE will gut the Federal Transit Administration and undermine the Department of Transportation.

We cannot wave these nominees through by unanimous consent without a real debate. Therefore, I object.

Madam President, Donald Trump and Elon Musk are taking a chain saw to Social Security.

For nearly a century, Social Security has been there for tens of millions of Americans. But now, Trump and Musk are threatening to tear all of that down. They are firing staff. They are plotting to close down offices. They are making it harder for people to get help over the telephone.

Trump's pick to head up Social Security, Frank Bisignano, will rubberstamp Trump and Musk's attack on Social Security. He will let them keep slashing services. He will let them keep threatening benefits. That is going to hurt people everywhere, from seniors who count on their monthly checks right now to the parents of kids with disabilities supported by Social Security, to every American who is paying into the program now for results later on down the line.

Social Security, by the way, is more than just a retirement program. It is insurance. If you are 30 years old today and you get in an accident and become disabled, Social Security has you covered. If you have a child and something happens to you, that kid will get Social Security benefits.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk want to rip that protection away. Two people who don't have the slightest clue how much Social Security means to families are now threatening Americans' benefits in order to pay for giant tax cuts for billionaires, and since those two cannot begin to imagine what it means for working people, let's tell them what Social Security does.

A few weeks ago, I posted a video explaining what Trump and Musk were doing to Social Security, and I asked people: Just tell your stories. And the stories came flooding in, and here are just a few:

I'm on Social Security disability--it's about 95 percent of

my total income. Every month since Trump took office this

year, I've worried about whether or not my [Social Security]

payment will come as usual.

Yes, there are millions of people out there who are worried about getting their Social Security payments on time because Trump and Musk are out there with that famous chain saw, doing what they can to make it harder for people to get the benefits that they have earned.

Or here is another:

I've had Medicare medication coverage for around 20 years,

and all of [a] sudden, with Musk's appearance, I've had to

fight to keep it.

Here is someone who has a legal right--a benefit--and now, thanks to Elon Musk, has to be in the fight in order to keep what this person is entitled to.

Or another:

I've been getting my Social Security check with zero

problems for 15 years. Last night, I was so worried about me

not getting a check [that] I stayed up to the early morning

hours, to make sure it was in my account. Thanks to Trump and

Musk, I worry if I will be able to pay my rent every month.

Since Trump has been in office, it's been extremely

stressful.

Yes, that is the stress people are feeling about whether or not they will have access to the money that they invested year after year when they were working, the money that they earned--their Social Security benefits.

Or another:

We have a son born with Down syndrome and we are now

retired, depending on our Social Security for the three of

us--for food, utilities, clothing, medical services, things

that we worked [for] all our lives, only to have billionaires

come in and take what little we have to live on away.

Yes, the billionaires may not care about Social Security, but here is someone who depends on it every day.

Or another:

I'm about to turn 65 and have had a nightmare of a time

trying to even talk to a real human being at the Social

Security office. It's been just a series of dead ends and

mistakes piled atop confusion.

And, boy, there is the heart of it. Donald Trump and Elon Musk can't legally cut Social Security benefits, but what Trump and Musk are now doing is cutting access to being able to get your Social Security benefits started, which has a very similar effect for people who don't get what they earned all their lives.

Or here is another:

I had cancer at 52 years old--stage 4 uterine cancer. I

spent more than a year fighting cancer. I am currently 66

years old and fighting the chronic pain from the chemicals

they used to treat the cancer. I rely on my Social Security

to survive. What am I going to do?

This is what is happening in America now because Donald Trump and Elon Musk are taking a chain saw to Social Security.

Or another:

I'm 71 years old and work part time as a data technician in

dementia research, so my [Social Security benefits]

supplement my income. I'm anxious that eventually I, too,

will have my Social Security check delayed or stopped

altogether.

Or another:

We all need Social Security to survive, as a nation. I

myself have been having it drawn out of my paychecks for over

40 years but haven't retired yet and will need it shortly. My

only hope is that it is still there when I need it. We earned

that right to collect this money and [will] not let a bunch

of billionaires take it from us.

Amen.

I have worked since I was 16 years old and now I'm 71 but I

still work part-time. It goes without saying that I need my

[Social Security] benefits to survive and since Trump and

Musk took over I don't know from one month to the next what

might happen. So scary now!

This is what Donald Trump and Elon Musk are doing to people who are counting on Social Security.

Or another:

I only get $25,000 yearly from Social Security, and it

constitutes more than half of my income. I have a small

pension from the company where I worked for 40 years. If I

lose my Social Security, I'll have to support myself and my

sister (who cannot work) . . . I don't have much in savings

due to continuing medical expenses over the years. [We] need

my Social Security to survive.

I will say that again.

[We] need my Social Security to survive.

Or another:

I'm a [Social Security] employee and I just want to say

thank you for standing up for the programs SSA runs and the

beneficiaries. It is true it's been becoming harder for

people to access their benefits but also for other services

such as getting their Social Security card replaced. There

[are] some days where people are waiting for 8 hours just to

talk to a customer service representative or they don't even

get the call back and have to call again the next day to have

an issue resolved--that's if they have the time [to call] the

next day.

That is testimony from the frontlines, from one who works at the Social Security Administration--lines that are 8 hours long.

Or another:

I went to a [Social Security] office yesterday because I

need[ed] to change my direct deposit for my monthly benefits.

The doors were locked . . . All the booths were shuttered.

Sign on the door said ``by appointment only'' and there was a

number to call, which I did. The automated system put me on

hold, and the recording said 15-minute wait, and after time

passed, the recording said I would be helped as soon as

possible, then said they were receiving higher than normal

call volumes . . . After several rings, the recording said .

. . leave [a] message (which I did) and someone will return

your call, but that hasn't happened yet. As I sat outside

that office, another person walked up and said he heard that

we have to go into the office in person to show our ID or

lose our benefits--then realized the door was locked . . .

Now I am very concerned that I might not get my benefits in

the future.

So, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, that is what your attack on Social Security means for Americans: more problems and fewer people to fix them; hours on the phone or hours waiting in line at an office, trying to get help--all to get the benefits that people have

paid into their entire working lives. That is money they have earned and money they are owed.

Frank Bisignano has made clear he will not stop the chaos. He will not stop the harm. That is wrong. On behalf of every single American who counts on Social Security, I am voting no on this appointment, and I encourage all of my colleagues--Democrat and Republican--to do the same.

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, President Trump took a strong American economy and broke it in less than 100 days.

Right now, Republican Senators are at a crossroads. Will they vote to stop Trump's chaotic tariffs and save our economy, or will they continue bending the knee to Donald Trump? That is the vote that we are forcing tonight.

When he ran for office, Donald Trump promised, over and over and over, that he would lower costs on day one. Those were his words: Lower costs on day one. In fact, he said after he was elected that it was one of the main reasons that he won. But as soon as the election was over, he ignored that promise.

Instead of working to lower costs on day one, he has decided to start the dumbest trade war in U.S. history, which is already increasing costs for American households and damaging our economy.

So let's take a step back and talk about what has happened since Trump started this trade war.

The stock market took the biggest plunge since the early days of the pandemic, sinking millions of Americans' retirement accounts. Businesses have begun hiking prices and laying off workers. Americans are worried that they won't be able to survive a cratering economy. And, just today, Americans woke up to the news that Donald Trump single-handedly shrunk our economy in 3 months and raised the cost of their groceries.

The warning lights are all flashing red. We have seen this before, but this time our economy is teetering on the edge not because of a mortgage meltdown or a one-in-a-century virus but because of one man alone: the President of the United States.

Unless we reverse course quickly, many economists believe that a recession is inevitable. And like in all recessions, the pain will fall hardest on working families. Many Americans will face the one-two punch of job losses on top of overwhelming debt burdens. A cascade of defaults and foreclosures and personal bankruptcies could follow.

With so many indications that American families are in serious trouble, our government should be throwing them a lifeline. Instead, President Trump is throwing them an anchor, while he carves out exceptions for a few well-connected billionaires who have bent the knee.

This is the moment for Congress to step up. And where are the Senate Republicans? Watching? Waiting? Hoping it doesn't get worse? Hoping that maybe somebody else will step up?

Well, I am here to say: It is up to us in the U.S. Senate. No one else is coming to save us. We are the ones who have to act.

If Republicans care about the American people, they will vote yes on our resolution today and turn off the fake emergency that Donald Trump is using to impose his on-again, off-again red-light, green-light tariffs--the tariffs that are pushing our economy off a cliff.

Let me repeat: Congress can end this economic threat today. All we need are some Republican Senators to join us to vote down the President's abuse of emergency authorities.

Unless we take action now, millions of people will lose their jobs, families will be destroyed, and our economy will take years to recover. But this time, it will be the President of the United States who destroyed our economy, and it will be congressional Republicans who helped him do it because they didn't have the spine to stand up to Donald Trump.

So I say to my Republican colleagues: Let's get this done. You have a choice. You can either continue to enable Donald Trump's tariff chaos, or you could actually stand up for our constituents. It is truly that simple.

The chaos and corruption of Trump's first 100 days can be curbed. The President is no King, and he only has as much power as Congress is willing to let him keep.

It is time for us--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--to step up and head off a crisis before millions more American families are hurt. We have the power. We just need the courage to use it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to say how much I appreciate the remarks of Senator Alsobrooks.

It is an honor to fight alongside you.

So here we are--100 days, 100 acts of corruption.

Today, I am reading into the Congressional Record 100 reports of corruption from Donald Trump's first 100 days in office.

Now, when he ran for office, Trump promised repeatedly--repeatedly-- that he would lower costs ``on day one.'' But instead of following through on his promise, Trump and his Trump administration have paved the way for the President, his top officials, and his billionaire buddies to personally feed at the trough of government corruption.

So count with me. In just 100 days, Donald Trump, his family, and his administration have:

No. 1, turned the White House into a Tesla dealership.

No. 2, fired independent Commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission.

No. 3, punished former officials who opposed his 2020 election lies.

No. 4, paid for the White House Easter Egg Roll by soliciting corporate sponsors who have business pending before the government.

No. 5, helped Trump's son set up a club--pay $500,000 for access to Trump's Cabinet.

No. 6, declared that there would be no tariff exceptions, then permitted Apple's CEO behind-the-scenes access, and, poof, iPhone tariffs were cut.

No. 7, created an opening for insider trading by reportedly giving Wall Street exclusive information about how trade talks were going.

No. 8, hosted million-dollar dinners between Big Pharma CEOs and their regulator, R.F.K., Jr.

No. 9, launched crypto meme coin right before the inauguration to make millions of dollars, then increased the value of those coins by signing Executive orders, making crypto a priority.

No. 10, launched a meme coin for Melania too.

No. 11, promised his ``rich-as-hell'' donors a giant tax handout and is working hard to deliver.

No. 12, weakened rules insulating government workers from politics.

No. 13, limited corporate foreign bribery investigations.

No. 14, halted enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act-- wouldn't want people to know what is going on.

No. 15, offered a private dinner with Trump himself and a special tour of the White House for the top 220 holders of his meme coin, permitting Trump and his family to profit both from the runup in the value of the coin and the increase in trading on the Trump platform.

No. 16, accepted $40 million for First Lady Melania's documentary from Jeff Bezos--way above the market rate.

No. 17, pointed to Bezos's multimillion-dollar documentary payment as a model when Warner Bros. asked Trump's team how to improve its own relationship with the White House.

No. 18, struck a deal with Amazon to stream Trump's old show, ``The Apprentice,'' which will mean more money for Trump, as Amazon is seeking tax breaks and other Federal benefits.

No. 19, coercing law firms to offer almost $1 billion in free legal work in an arrangement that experts say could run afoul of anti-bribery laws.

No. 20, started undermining Medicare's ability to negotiate drug prices after Big Pharma gave millions to Trump's inauguration.

No. 21, filed a meritless lawsuit against ``60 Minutes'' and launched a baseless FCC investigation.

No. 22, tried to get the AP to bend the knee and kicked them out of the White House briefing room when they refused to bend the knee.

No. 23, hired Defense Secretary Hegseth's younger brother to serve in a key role.

No. 24, hired a longtime former partner of Don, Jr., to serve as Ambassador to Greece.

No. 25, nominated Jared Kushner's father to serve as Ambassador to France.

No. 26, selected Tiffany Trump's father-in-law to serve as an adviser.

No. 27, appointed an oil and gas executive to lead the Department of Energy.

No. 28, selected a Chief of Staff who was a big-time lobbyist for clients like tobacco and mining companies.

No. 29, named officials who had recently lobbied for oil and chemical giants to help write EPA rules. What could possibly go wrong?

No. 30, appointed Mehmet Oz, who had close ties to Medicare Advantage insurers--in fact, sold it on TV--to lead CMS to set payment rates and otherwise help out whom? Medicare Advantage insurers.

No. 31, appointed John Phelan, a major donor with no military or government experience, to lead the Navy and hand out Navy construction contracts.

No. 32, appointed Pam Bondi, a former lobbyist for a Federal detention contractor, to lead the DOJ.

No. 33, announced that the DOJ would stop prioritizing enforcement of restrictions on foreign lobbyists under the leadership of Bondi, who herself is a former foreign lobbyist for Qatar.

No. 34, appointed Howard Lutnick, who has billions invested in companies accused of illegally facilitating crypto money laundering, as the guy to lead the Commerce Department.

No. 35, appointed Marty Makary, the former executive of a company selling weight-loss drugs, to lead the FDA, which would be the Agency that would regulate his company.

No. 36, appointed Sean Duffy, who lobbied for the airline industry, to be the Transportation Secretary to regulate the airline industry.

No. 37, tapped Pete Hegseth, whose wife owns stock in large defense contractors, to lead the Defense Department and help hand out those defense contracts.

No. 38, tapped Doug Burgum, who made money from leasing land to Big Oil, to lead the Interior Department and manage the leasing to oil companies.

No. 39, nominated a Big Oil lobbyist to run the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

No. 40, nominated as IRS head Billy Long, an aggressive salesman for a fraud-riddled tax credit who received donations after being nominated so he could clear out old campaign debts.

No. 41, tapped Paul Atkins, a former crypto lobbyist, to lead the SEC that will regulate crypto.

No. 42, appointed a former tax lobbyist to lead tax policy.

No. 43, appointed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who planned to get paid for anti-vax lawsuits while he was heading up HHS and could affect the outcome of exactly those same lawsuits.

No. 44, appointed a top Pentagon official who led a firm investing in defense contractors and has directed DOD to outsource as much as possible to defense contractors.

No. 45, appointed someone who lobbied to privatize Medicare to lead OMB's healthcare budget.

No. 46, installed Steve Davis to effectively lead DOGE, while also leading another Musk company.

No. 47, installed another DOGE leader to control Treasury's payment system, while still holding down his day job, oh, as a software CEO.

No. 48, handed the power over crypto policy to a White House crypto czar, who leads a venture capital firm that heavily invests in crypto.

No. 49, selected a border czar, who led a firm that got tens of millions of dollars of Federal contracts for Homeland Security companies.

No. 50, appointed Treasury Secretary Bessent, who is gutting the IRS so that it can't audit rich tax cheats because he himself is a tax- dodging megamillionaire.

No. 51, pardoned Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois Governor convicted for corruption after his vocal support for Trump.

No. 52, pardoned January 6 insurrectionists who tried to overturn an election that Trump lost.

No. 53, pardoned a Trump loyalist found guilty of wire fraud.

No. 54, pardoned the son of a longtime Republican donor.

No. 55, pardoned a corporation that had been fined $100 million for money laundering.

No. 56, watched his own stablecoin while preparing to sign legislation that will help stablecoin and let Donald Trump oversee it.

No. 57, sold merch with Presidential branding.

No. 58, disbanded DOJ's crypto unit after business talks between Binance and a Trump-backed crypto company ramped up.

No. 59, halted SEC enforcement actions against crypto companies that enriched Trump personally.

No. 60, met with crypto executives who are asking Treasury to back off of oversight of their companies, all while simultaneously exploring a deal to list a Trump-linked crypto company's new stablecoin.

No. 61, maintain financial ties between Trump officials and Trump's media company that includes FBI Director Kash Patel, who was given a huge award of Trump media company stock.

No. 62, nominated Attorney General Bondi, who owned $2 million in DJT shares.

No. 63, paid the Education Secretary almost $1 million in Trump media company shares.

No. 64, nominated Intelligence Board nominees who have millions in Trump media company shares.

No. 65, selected a special envoy to the Middle East who wants to develop real estate in Gaza while running his own real estate firm while he is Special Envoy to the Middle East.

No. 66, appointed an FBI Director who consulted for the Qatari Government.

No. 67, picked that FBI Director, even though he also received millions of dollars from a Cayman Island holding company with ties to China.

No. 68, decided to cancel the Direct File Program. The cancellation of this program that lets taxpayers file their taxes online for free will help the bottom line of Intuit, which charges people for filing their taxes and that gave $1 million to Trump's inauguration.

No. 69, took its largest inauguration donation from a poultry company that was under DOJ's scrutiny. After the donation, the SEC approved its parent company for the New York Stock Exchange.

No. 70, dropped a probe into sexual misconduct allegations against Trump's Education Secretary's husband.

No. 71, hosted dozens of foreign Federal and State officials at Mar- a-Lago, helping enrich Trump.

No. 72, hosted a GOP retreat at another one of Trump's resorts, for which Trump's resorts get paid.

No. 73, circumvented the normal contracting process to pick a company with close ties to Trump's former campaign manager.

No. 74, awarded a $30 million ICE contract to Trump insider Peter Thiel.

No. 75, continued developing new Trump properties overseas, including in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

No. 76, hatched a plan for the State Department to pay Tesla $400 million.

No. 77, accepted a $4 million inauguration donation from a GOP megadonor and then nominated him as UK Ambassador on the same day.

Did anyone miss the message here?

And Donald Trump took actions so that he could advance the personal interests of his ``co-President,'' Elon Musk. How? Well, he fired EEOC leaders that were investigating and suing Tesla. He illegally fired the NLRB Chair, which had filed a complaint against SpaceX, one of Musk's companies. He gutted the CFPB staff and fired the Director after they investigated complaints against Musk's companies. He gutted the Department of Labor office investigating Tesla and SpaceX and fired the USAID inspector general who launched a probe into satellite terminals made by Musk's Starlink.

No. 83, targeted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration staff who were reportedly ``a thorn in Tesla's side.'' That is enough to fire them.

No. 84, said Musk would self-police his conflicts of interest--yeah, right.

No. 85, pressured the Administrator of the FAA, which fined Musk's SpaceX, to resign.

And No. 86, permitted Musk to keep his financial disclosure hidden. And, by the way, I have a new bill to fix that one in particular.

No. 87, allowed Musk's Starlink to start working with the FAA after Musk criticized the FAA's air traffic telecom system.

No. 88, made Musk's SpaceX the frontrunner for a new, lucrative Golden Dome contract.

No. 89, stood by Musk when his X executives told an advertising firm to increase ad revenue, threatening that Musk could interfere with their pending merger if they didn't play along.

No. 90, permitted Musk to join Trump's interview with the Air Force Secretary nominee while SpaceX held billions of dollars in contracts with the Air Force.

No. 91, permitted the National Transportation Safety Board to share news related to the airplane crashes in Washington and Philadelphia only on Musk-owned X.

No. 92, permitted the Social Security Administration to share important public communication only on X.

No. 93, dropped the Department of Justice's anti-discrimination complaint against Musk's SpaceX.

No. 94, fired FDA staffers reviewing Elon Musk's Neuralink clinical trial applications--a lot of benefits for Elon Musk there.

And for our closing six moves that make every bit of this corruption even harder to root out, Trump got rid of the cops on the beat.

No. 95, fired 18 inspectors general who make sure that Federal Agencies follow the law.

No. 96, fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel, who protects whistleblowers and makes sure that civil service laws are followed.

No. 97, fired the head of the Office of Government Ethics, who watches to see that the President and his administration follow the laws on conflicts of interest, bribery, and other ethical issues. The guy is gone.

No. 98, fired DOJ prosecutors who worked on the January 6 investigations.

No. 99, sidelined DOJ's office that reviews the legality of Executive orders.

And No. 100, gutted DOJ's office that prosecutes misconduct by public officials.

That is 100 corrupt acts in 100 days. Americans deserve accountability. We need to fight back--all of us.

I yield the floor.

Of course.

I appreciate the question. I want to say here that I have never seen, anytime in American history, this level of corruption over 8 years in the White House, much less in just 100 days.

This level of corruption is everywhere, all the time, and it truly undermines the ability of our country to function. It undermines our economy. It undermines our position in the world. It undermines the economic stability of our families. And it undermines our entire democracy.

I thank the Senator for the question.

Mr. President, Donald Trump is trashing our economy.

First, Donald Trump imposed across-the-board tariffs. Then, just a few hours ago, he dropped those tariffs to 10 percent on everyone and moved the tariffs up to 125 percent on China, up from 105 percent yesterday. Now there is confusion. There is chaos. No one knows what the tariffs will be tomorrow or the next day or next week or next month.

But here is what we do know: Are prices still going up? Yes. Are businesses still wary about investing? Yes. Are millions of working people still worried about their jobs and millions of small businesses still worried about closing shop? Yes.

Right before Donald Trump declared that some of his tariffs were off again, he sent out a message to his billionaire buddies. He posted ``THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!'' Was that market manipulation? Was it corruption in plain sight? We need an independent investigation into market manipulation because Americans need to know whether President Trump or anyone in his administration manipulated the market to benefit their donors all while they are working for the American people and while small businesses and those working families are paying the price.

It is a disaster, but here is the thing: Republicans in Congress have a chance to stop him right now. If they do nothing, they, along with Trump, are responsible for the fallout. Congress could end this dangerous trade war right now by passing my bipartisan resolution with Senator Ron Wyden to turn off the fake emergency authority that Donald Trump is using to impose his worldwide and chaotic tariffs.

So I have a simple question for the Senate: Why aren't we passing this resolution this instant?

Let's take a step back and talk about what has happened since Trump imposed his illegal, across-the-board tariffs 1 week ago today. Americans' retirement accounts took a hit. Businesses started hiking prices, and many are preparing for layoffs. Consumer confidence hit its lowest point in years as millions of Americans wonder will they have a job in 3 months' time. Economists have said that if we continue down this path of uncertainty, recession is inevitable.

We have actually seen this before--in 2008 during the mortgage meltdown and in 2020, as we were hit by a once-in-a-century virus. But this time, there is no mortgage meltdown; there is no virus. No, the crisis is entirely the fault of one person: Donald Trump.

This might be the first time in history that the actions of a single man have destroyed so much economic value around the planet. If we do not reverse course, this catastrophic mistake will seriously hurt people, seriously hurt small businesses, and seriously hurt the United States' position in the world.

We all know what is happening. It isn't possible to turn on a television or check your news feed without seeing it. Every single elected Republican in Congress knows what these tariffs would mean for people--from farmers who are pleading for help as they brace for the trade war, to seniors who are on the verge of retiring and now having to scramble to figure out how they can work longer, to workers who don't know how many more paychecks they will get before being laid off.

I know there are people who say tariffs are always a bad idea. I don't agree. I have long argued that smart tariff

policy can be an important tool to help grow domestic industries, an important tool to help support good jobs, and an important tool to promote the development of critical supply chains here at home.

For three decades, politicians from both parties have worked together to cut bad trade deals--trade deals that sold out American workers and promoted offshoring. Entire communities across this country were hallowed out, and American families across this country were left in the wreckage.

We owe it to these communities, we owe it to these families to forge a new path forward on trade, one that invests in American workers and American industry. We owe it to these communities to integrate tariffs with other economic tools to encourage domestic production and good jobs right here in the United States of America. But everyone knows that the kinds of tariffs that Donald Trump is putting in place will not do that. They aren't strategic; they are just plain dumb.

It is widely reported that the math behind this brilliant tariff scheme looks exactly like it came from someone typing a bunch of basic questions into ChatGPT and using the resulting bogus numbers to slap tariffs on essentially every country in the world, including a group of islands whose only inhabitants are penguins. Plagiarizing an AI chatbot's idea of a rational tariff policy and using it then to blow up the world economy would make a very funny movie--if real people's livelihoods weren't at stake.

Trump's on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again tariffs are not encouraging businesses to develop plants in the United States. Instead, they have the opposite effect--they scare off investors.

Donald Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs won't bring back manufacturing jobs. Instead, companies are cutting manufacturing jobs, and factory productivity is declining across the country. These tariffs are job killers no matter the sector.

As much as Trump loves taking credit for investments that were announced before he took office, the reality is, layoffs are now at the highest they have been since the start of the pandemic and first- quarter hiring plans are at a decade-plus low.

Let me say that again. The tariffs are scaring off investors. They are not bringing back manufacturing jobs, and layoffs are on the rise.

That is a lot of bad news all at once, and believe it or not, there is more bad news. Donald Trump's tariffs will also be used as an excuse by companies to jack up prices and rip off American families.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said that Trump's tariffs will mean higher prices. Then he gave an example from the first term of the Trump administration when tariffs on washing machines led to companies hiking prices on washing machines. OK. We understand that, but the damage didn't stop there. Those companies also hiked prices on dryers even though there were no tariffs on dryers. Why? Because they knew American consumers would just assume those prices also went up because of tariffs.

Now imagine what companies can get away with when the President is loudly yelling about putting 10 percent tariffs on everyone, everywhere, everything, all at once, and threatening to do more and at rates that make no sense, and he could change again at any moment. It is not just a killer for honest businesses; it is also going to be a field day for companies that want to juice their profits with just a little price gouging.

CEOs are already talking about it. Here are some quotes:

We have planned to raise prices to offset.

Another:

We will pass through that price.

Can they be any clearer? They are already telling us that they don't just pass along cost increases that they face; they are saying they will use tariffs to push prices higher and higher.

Right now, every economic indicator is flashing red. Every community around the country is ringing the alarm bell. People understand that if we do not put an end to this chaos once and for all, we are headed for an economic disaster.

As it turns out, even Senators are raising the alarm.

Senator John Kennedy said:

Tariffs are like whiskey: A little whiskey, under the right

circumstances, can be refreshing--but too much whiskey, under

the wrong circumstances, can make you drunk as a goat.

Go, John.

Senator Thom Tillis said:

Anyone who says there may be a little bit of pain before we

get things right needs to talk to my farmers who are one crop

away from bankruptcy.

Senator Ted Cruz said he was not ``a fan of jacking up taxes on American consumers.''

Yes, no surprises here. These Republicans all know what is happening. They just refuse to do anything about it. They sit on their hands while millions of Americans across the country are sitting at home wondering when Republicans in Congress are going to step up and do something.

A few Senators have commented, but so far, we have seen no action-- none--from Republican leadership. Republican Senate leadership knows how bad the tariff situation is, but it is just the same old cowering before Donald Trump.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson could hold a vote immediately to shut off these tariffs and end the chaos. They could stand up to Trump and stand up for their constituents. They could demonstrate to the world that Congress has a role to play and can put some curbs on President Trump's tariffs by whim. But apparently Majority Leader Thune is in no hurry. He said earlier this week that he would just wait to see what is happening.

Senator Mike Johnson has said:

We are going to give [Trump] the space necessary to do it

and we'll see how it all develops . . . it's only been a

week.

Yes, it has only been a week. And in that week, capital markets around the world have lost trillions of dollars in value, working people and seniors have seen their savings decimated, people have already started getting pink slips, prices are already going up. And Thune and Johnson's own constituents are urging their Representatives and their Senators to fight back, but so far, they do nothing.

Farmers like Rodney Koch, who grows soybeans in Garretson, SD, are worried that tariffs ``will hurt our pocketbooks.'' Can Leader Thune explain to farmers in his home State why he is sitting on his hands while Republicans put their livelihoods at risk?

Business owners in Louisiana say they are bracing ``for price hikes from Trump tariffs.'' Can Speaker Johnson explain to his constituents back home why he is sitting on his hands as their costs go through the roof?

Republican leadership knows how bad this is, but they do nothing. Normally, that would be it. There is nothing that the minority party, the Democrats, could do about it. But with Senator Wyden's and my bipartisan resolution, Republicans cannot stop us. We can force a vote on the tariff question. Republicans cannot stop us from forcing a vote, but they can delay us, and that is what they are doing. Instead of passing a bill to save our economy, instead of reassuring both Americans and people around the world that there are some limits on what Donald Trump can do in terms of jerking tariffs up and down and sideways and on and off--instead of doing that, the Senate is about to vote to put a career Wall Street suit in charge of the SEC. But it is not just any Wall Streeter. This is a corporate guy, Paul Atkins, who actually has a track record on financial crashes.

The Republican nominee for Chairman of the SEC was a member of the SEC during the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. His track record in the runup to the crash was impeccable: Mr. Atkins sat on his hands--no acknowledgement that the crash was coming, no steps to avoid the crash, no push to help out families or small businesses once the crash hit. Instead, Mr. Atkins took votes while he was on the SEC that directly contributed to the crash.

Even today, despite all of the evidence about how loose regulations triggered a crisis that cost 10 million families their homes and put millions more out of work, Mr. Atkins has 20/0 hindsight about his mistakes. Apparently, he thinks that the only thing we did wrong in the runup to the 2008 crash was not to remove more rules from the giant banks so they could have loaded up even faster on more risk, taken

more profits, and then needed a bigger bailout.

Once he left government, Mr. Atkins moved to a long career helping billionaire scammers like Sam Bankman-Fried get even richer.

Getting Mr. Atkins confirmed instead of stopping the economic chaos-- this is the priority for Republicans in Congress right now. Put another fox in charge of the henhouse while the whole farm could burn to the ground.

So that is the Republican plan: Ignore the economic chaos happening around us, confirm a guy who helped cause the last crash, and then go on vacation for 2 weeks. If the Republicans do that, it will be a month before Congress can vote to reverse the President's disastrous tariffs and demonstrate to the world that there are some limits on his ability to cause economic chaos.

The Republican approach is reckless, it is dangerous, and most of all, it is cowardly. Trillions of dollars in wealth evaporated last week. Who knows how much irreversible damage will be done to our economy in a month or in 90 days when Trump decides to put these tariffs back on, back off, back on, and back off. Does anyone want to find out? I certainly don't.

This kind of uncertainty is enormously damaging to our economy. In the meantime, all that happens is that CEOs continue to bow and scrape to Donald Trump at black-tie galas, hoping to secure loopholes for their own companies.

Congress has the tools to put a stop to this. We need to act now to stop the chaos. Senator Wyden's and my bipartisan resolution would turn off the emergency, bogus declaration that Donald Trump is using. It would demonstrate that Congress is willing to stand up and say that Donald Trump will not have the magic wand to continue to turn tariffs on and off at whim. I urge my Republican colleagues to join us and to vote down the President's abuse of emergency authorities.

Republicans in Congress have a choice to make. They can continue to bow down to Donald Trump while he sabotages our economy, or they can stand up for the American people who elected them.

Every Democrat is ready to go. We are ready to vote to end this destructive tariff war, but we need Republicans to stand up and show some courage.

If Republicans don't step up and our economy falls off a cliff, we will know who is responsible. If Trump's tariff games of ``on-again, off-again'' crash our economy, we know which Republicans will be responsible. If Trump's tariff games lead to layoffs around the country, we know which Republicans will be responsible. If Trump's tariff games force small businesses to close their doors, we know which Republicans will be responsible. If Trump's tariff games hurt our farmers, we know which Republicans will be responsible. If Trump's tariff games force retirees to have to get out and find work, we know which Republicans will be responsible.

We know who is responsible, and it is every single one of these cowards who will not take the blowtorch out of Donald Trump's hands. These Republican Senators understand that what is happening is not normal. They understand that we are in an extremely dangerous moment. They understand that if Congress does not act, Americans of every class, every race, every age, every religion, every region of the country, and every political party will suffer. This is the time for Republicans to act.

Donald Trump's friends at Mar-a-Lago may flatter him over candlelit dinners and tell him he is all powerful, but Donald Trump is not a King, and Congress is not powerless. We can act to stop him, and that is exactly what we should do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a true public servant, Cameron Ricker, the chief clerk of Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, who is leaving the Senate after 8 years. And I am glad to recognize today Cameron's loving family, who is here in the Gallery: his wife Zaida, his daughter Zona, and his parents Don and Peggy, who flew all the way from Idaho to be here with us, as well as current and former banking staff.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Cameron is the backbone of the Senate Banking Committee. As chief clerk, Cameron is the person who makes sure that hearings go off without a hitch; that we are able to review paperwork from White House nominees and to fulfill our constitutional duty to advise and consent on Presidential appointments; that we are able to mark up important legislation. In short, Cameron is the reason that the Banking Committee can do the work of the Banking Committee.

I would like to ask for permission to bring Cameron to the floor while I finish my remarks.

Thank you.

Can you join us, Cameron?

Cameron demonstrates public service at its very best. The role of the chief clerk on the Banking Committee is nonpartisan. A chief clerk serves both the majority and minority fairly and equally. To this day, I don't know if anyone could tell you what party Cameron belongs to and how he votes--and that is no small feat in today's Washington. All we know is that he approaches his work with the utmost professionalism, competence, and kindness every single day.

Need to know the answer to some arcane rule in the committee handbook? Cameron's your guy. Need to know how many people are in the hearing room at any given moment so your boss doesn't miss their question time? Ask Cameron. Need some help brokering peace with the chairman's team across the hallway? Go to Cameron again.

I am personally very grateful for Cameron's support in the early months of my tenure as ranking member of this committee. He spent hours meeting with my staff to make sure that they were prepared for new decisions and responsibilities, impressing every single one of them with his preparation, his thoughtfulness, and his commitment to public service.

Generations of Senators and staff who have served on the Banking Committee have been inspired by Cameron's work ethic, hypercompetence, and religious devotion to his favorite pen.

It is a Zebra F-701, for those of you who are wondering.

Cameron is humble and hard-working, but don't let his humility fool you. He is also a trailblazer. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, no one knew how the Senate was going to conduct its committee business. How the heck was an institution that was still firmly stuck in the 18th century supposed to hold hearings or mark up legislation when it was dangerous for people even to be in a room together? Cameron was the first to figure it out. And thanks to his persistence, the Banking Committee was the first in the Senate to hold a virtual hearing during the pandemic, laying out the roadmap for every other committee to follow.

My respect for Cameron is broadly shared. I want to read quotes that two recent leaders of the Banking Committee sent to me--one Democrat, one Republican--so that we can hear in their own words how much Cameron has meant to the Banking Committee.

Former chairman Sherrod Brown said:

Cameron Ricker served 8 years on the Banking and Housing

Committee, 6 of those years as chief clerk when I was

Chairman and Ranking Member. The committee couldn't have

asked for a more fair, hardworking, and forward thinking

colleague during a time full of transitions and challenges.

We were lucky to serve with him and wish Cameron and his

family all the best in the next chapter.

Then there is former ranking member Pat Toomey, who said:

Cameron Ricker's departure from the Banking Committee is a

huge loss for the Senate. For over 8 years, he's gracefully

kept the trains running on time at the committee, which is no

easy feat. And he's always done it with a smile. As Ranking

Member, I observed firsthand Cameron's can-do spirit, [his]

tireless work ethic, and [his] attention to detail. He was

invaluable to me, my staff, and the entire committee. I thank

him for his dedicated service in the Senate and wish him and

his family all the best as he starts the next chapter of his

professional career.

I want to close with a story about Cameron that is close to my heart.

Marking up legislation is one of the most important things any Senate committee does. What people may not know is how much work it is behind the scenes and especially how much work it is for Cameron and his team on Banking.

By tradition, the Banking Committee requires that any member wishing to file an amendment to legislation being considered in a markup print out 50 copies of that amendment, sign each one, and drop the stack off to Cameron's office by 4 p.m. and not a second later lest Cameron nicely slam the door in your face.

In a markup last Congress, before I was the ranking member, my office had an army of outstanding interns racing stacks of amendments over to Cameron as fast as the printer would shoot out the 50 pages so that we could get them in before 4 p.m., the deadline.

Drop off a stack of amendments to Cameron; run back to my office; pick up the next batch; run back to Cameron--over and over and over again.

It was the middle of the summer, and let's just be blunt: There was a lot of sweat. Cameron offered them kindness and encouragement the entire way, and they were deeply touched.

When our interns ferried over the last batch just in the nick of time, they sheepishly asked Cameron for a photo. Cameron obliged, and that picture of sweaty people who were committed to getting their jobs done on behalf of the American people has been hanging in our office ever since.

Work on the Banking Committee can be difficult, maybe even more than on other committees. Democrats' and Republicans' views on the issues under the committee's jurisdiction are often diametrically opposed. Things get heated, and sometimes they get personal. But Cameron is a demonstration of decency and exemplary nonpartisan public service. He has made the Banking Committee better, and I am grateful for his service to the committee and to our country.

Cameron, we will miss you. Best wishes to you and your family on your next adventure.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to say thank you to the Senator from Oregon. I am grateful for your leadership in making sure that America understands exactly what the Republicans are up to and how they have just got one central mission; and that is, cut services for everybody else, cut all the things that ordinary folks depend on, so that they can deliver tax cuts for a handful of billionaires. It is obscene, and I appreciate how you point it out.

I am here because ``co-Presidents'' Donald Trump and Elon Musk are taking a chain saw to our Federal Government, hurting families in Massachusetts and all across the country. You know, it is almost like they drew up a list of every program that families rely on, everything that is valuable to families, and then went through the list and said: Let's cut that. Let's cut that. Let's cut that.

And why? To pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

Thanks to Donald Trump and Elon Musk, Grandma will have to drive hours if she has a problem with her Social Security check and needs someone to help her straighten it out. Why? Because Trump and Musk are closing the Social Security office in her neighborhood, and while they are at it, make it even harder by shutting down the phone lines.

Thanks to Trump and Musk, the afterschool program that gives kids a safe place to be after classes are over and before mom and dad get home from work, they want to cut those programs--the same with the aides that sit in classrooms with kids who need a little extra help learning how to read.

Thanks to Trump and Musk, critical medical research came to a screeching halt--research that could help save lives and find cures for all diseases.

Musk and Trump say that these cuts are about ``efficiency.'' That is a lie. Let's be clear. Trump and Musk are creating this sandstorm of chaos while they make these cuts because they want to distract us from what is really going on. They want to grease the skids for giant tax giveaways for their billionaire buddies and pay for it on the backs of working people.

Now, today, Republicans in Congress are putting forward a proposal to deliver these tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected, and they are asking us to vote on it tonight.

This bill--and Trump and Musk's cruel agenda--isn't good for Massachusetts, and it isn't good for our country. I am hearing from families at home in Massachusetts who are feeling the pain right now.

Start with medical research. Medical research powers our economy in Massachusetts, and it is the reason we have had incredible breakthroughs like vaccines and cancer drugs that save lives. So how did Donald Trump and Elon Musk thank the doctors and the researchers who are doing this work? By canceling tens of millions of dollars in Federal funds that support medical research at Massachusetts hospitals, universities, and healthcare providers on everything from clinical trials to pandemic readiness. And they did it just weeks after Trump tried to cut the funding that keeps the lights on at our community health centers.

So to anyone--anyone--who believes in science and believes in investing in cures for horrible diseases, now is the time to fight back. That is why I am filing amendments to the Republican bill to keep Federal support for Massachusetts medical research institutions and healthcare providers, including our community health centers. It is why I am filing another amendment to fight back against Trump and Musk's National Institutes of Health funding cuts, because we are a country that believes that we should invest in finding a cure for Alzheimer's, for diabetes, for cancer, and for other diseases.

On education. Education levels the playing field. It gives every kid a fighting chance. It doesn't matter to Trump and Musk. Just this week, they slashed millions of dollars in funding for K-through-12 education in our Commonwealth, shut down a regional office in Boston that helps administer Head Start, and canceled millions of dollars in funding that was helping pay for kids' school lunches. To them, that was the cherry on top of Trump's Executive order to ``abolish'' the entire Department of Education--throwing schools all across this country into chaos.

So to students, to parents, to teachers: Now is the time to fight back. We are fighting for an America where it is not just the kids of billionaires who get a good education but every kid in every community all across our Commonwealth.

It is why I have an amendment to the Republican bill to protect education funding in Massachusetts and to protect services like Head Start that lift up our kids and make sure we are not leaving families hanging out to dry.

I am fighting for our workers. Last week, Donald Trump signed an illegal Executive order attacking Federal unions and stripping workers of their rights. It is the definition of union-busting, and it is an attack on the workers who make sure that our food is safe to eat, who make sure that it is safe for us to fly in airplanes, who make sure that we take care of our veterans, who try to help us and protect us from viruses and diseases and so much more.

So to workers in Massachusetts and all across America: Now is the time to fight back. We need to amend this Republican tax cut bill to affirm Federal workers' right to unionize and to collectively bargain because the labor movement is bigger than Donald Trump and his unelected billionaire ``co-President.'' We believe that every worker deserves the freedom to join a union and to negotiate for a fair contract.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk are sawing through the programs that help working families breathe a little easier every day. They are doing it so that their billionaire buddies and giant corporations get trillions of dollars in tax giveaways, paid for on the backs of everyone else.

So here is the big question: Are we going to hand our country over to ``co-Presidents'' Donald Trump and Elon Musk and a handful of other billionaires and make everyone else pay for it or are we going to be a country that says: No. We want to make these investments so that everyone in this country gets an opportunity, so that everybody at least has a chance to build something for themselves.

That is the fight in front of us, and that is the fight I am fighting every single day for people in Massachusetts and all across this country.

Our public schools are the foundation of our future, but Donald Trump and Elon Musk are trying to end public education as we know it. Trump fired one out of every two Federal education workers, and then the next day, the application for Federal financial aid for millions of students went down. Then he signed an Executive order to abolish the Department of Education. So he fires the workers at the Department of Education, the Federal financial aid for millions of students goes down, and then he just tries to end the entire Department of Education.

States are already ringing the alarm bell that funding for little kids' school lunches is at risk. Kids with disabilities could lose their classroom aide. High schoolers who are already panicked enough about college are now even less sure about what their future looks like.

My very first job was as a public school teacher for kids with special needs. I have seen with my own eyes what the Department of Education does for families. So this week, I launched a campaign to save our schools and to bring everyone into the fight for our public schools.

One of the best ways to fight back on behalf of our schools is to share stories about what matters to us in this country. We know the power of telling stories and the power of organizing people and bringing them into this fight. So I asked people all across this country to share a story about a public school teacher who made a real difference in their lives. In the first 24 hours after I

put out that call, we got a flood of messages from people in communities all across this country who just wanted a chance to tell a story about a teacher who made a difference in their lives. I want to read some of those into the Congressional Record here.

I'm visually impaired. My high school teacher consultant

defended my rights in the classroom. I was able to graduate

and now am on my way to a Master of Public Policy at

Georgetown because of him.

That is how teachers make a difference.

Another:

Mrs. Butler, 4th grade, Bourne, Massachusetts. 1996. Had us

bring in newspaper stories, taught us chess. She spoke to us

like we were little adults and treated us with respect.

Someone who remembers that many, many years later.

Ms. J! I went to high school in Wisconsin and she was my AP

Psychology teacher. She made me feel special and I found out

later that I wasn't the only one. I bumped into her years

later and she inspired me to go on to grad school. I didn't

even know a masters in Higher Ed was a thing without her.

Teachers making a difference not just in the classroom but years and years later.

School was better than home. A teacher made sure I applied

for college. I went. Graduated.

Again, changing lives.

My daughter was born with disabilities. She was told she

was powerful. She has an MBA.

Pretty impressive.

I was a struggling student. One teacher always paid

attention and helped me after school.

My high school culinary arts teacher played a pivotal part

in my life, which has led to a lucrative career.

My son's music teacher went out of her way to create a spot

in the school band for him to play his electric guitar. Now

he is an accomplished musician who LOVES to play music.

The ways in which teachers change our lives.

My 5th grade teacher taught us to knit which allowed us

kids with different learning needs to thrive!

Someone who is grateful to this day.

My husband works for a high school in Alabama and teaches

teens coping skills. It has prevented suicides.

Truly, truly the importance of what our teachers do.

I was raised by a single parent who didn't go to college

and with the expectation that due to cost, college would not

be possible for me. One of my teachers repeatedly told me I

was smart and capable and that I should go to college and

then helped me apply. Now I have a PhD in Materials Chemistry

and work at a defense lab.

A reminder that teachers don't just contribute to the lives of their students, they contribute to the growth in the future of our entire Nation.

My high school Spanish teacher inspired me to be brave and

explore the world outside my small, rural town.

Good for you.

Here is one:

I was bullied a lot as a kid. My 6th grade teacher finally

got my bullies to leave me alone.

There is something life-changing for a sixth grader.

My 8th grade social studies teacher, Mrs. Gifford! Made me

want to be a Social Studies teacher too!

I was a struggling student. One teacher always paid

attention and helped me after school.

Had the public school system not worked for my child, she

wouldn't be where she is today.

My American Studies teacher's enthusiasm inspired my love

of politics and history!

Here is one from a teacher:

I am a public school teacher for Deaf and Hard of Hearing

students. I became one because I had an [Individualized

Education Program, or an] IEP. I continue to be inspired by

Mrs. Baumler who showed me what project-based learning and

collaborative education can be.

My daughter's Kindergarten teacher seeks grants on her own

time to help kids adjust.

Mrs. Snyder is the only person who told me I could have a

career in the arts.

Mrs. Tollel, my sewing teacher. She was very kind to me at

a moment in my life.

We remember those moments.

Both my kids have been in special education. One has a PhD.

[The] other is in law school.

I have my own story. Nobody in my family went to college. It was a second-grade teacher, Mrs. Lee, who scooped me up and whispered in my ear that I was special and that I could be a public school teacher. At that moment, my entire life changed. For all the rest of my growing-up years, whenever someone asked me anything about my future or what I was interested in, I would stand a little taller and say, ``I'm going to be a teacher.'' It guided my entire life.

I am grateful to have an opportunity to say thank you to Mrs. Lee.

The Federal Government has invested in our public schools and keeping class sizes smaller and making sure there are teacher aides for the kids who need extra help and in after-school programs so that working parents can know that their kids are in a safe place where they can do their homework or have some fun. Taking that away from our kids so that a handful of billionaires can scoop up some tax giveaways and be even richer is just plain ugly, and I will fight it with everything I have got.

Next, I want to talk for a minute about Social Security.

Right now, Donald Trump and his unelected, billionaire, ``co- President'' Elon Musk, are trying to rip away Social Security benefits from millions of Americans. You know, two people who do not have a clue about how important Social Security checks are and what they mean to families--two people who just don't understand that at all--are Elon Musk and Donald Trump. That is why they are willing to attack Social Security--so that they can pay for tax cuts for a handful of billionaires.

Now, let's be clear: Social Security is not charity. It is not some giveaway. It is not something by which a few rich people hand out coins to old folks. Social Security is a program that people pay for all of their working lives. There are 73 million Americans who depend on Social Security, and they pay for those Social Security benefits. Out of every paycheck, they were putting money into the Social Security system on the sacred promise that, when the time came that they were no longer working, they would be able to count on Social Security for food, for a roof over their heads, and for some real financial security. Elon Musk and Donald Trump are breaking that sacred promise, and they are breaking it so that billionaires can get a tax break.

Now, here is the thing: Elon Musk and Donald Trump know that they can't just go in and reduce Social Security benefits. They would like to. Remember, Elon Musk is the guy who called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He is the guy who has said: Look, you know, we are going to get this done. We need to cut Social Security.

The problem is, Elon Musk didn't establish Social Security. The problem is, Donald Trump didn't establish Social Security. No. It was Congress that passed the laws that created Social Security, and it is Congress and only Congress that can cut those Social Security benefits. So you would think Elon Musk and Donald Trump--I mean, shoot. Republicans are in the majority right here in the Senate and over in the House of Representatives. If they really want to cut Social Security, then do it out in the open and introduce a bill. Have your Republican buddies introduce a bill to cut Social Security benefits, and let's see where that goes. But, no, they know that cuts to Social Security are deeply unpopular, deeply unpopular. They know that people who answer to the voters are very hesitant to do that.

So what have they figured out? A backdoor way to come in and cut Social Security. And how do they do that? They just make it harder and harder and harder to get the Social Security benefits that people have paid for year after year after year; make it harder to correct an error; make it harder to apply; make it harder to get any help if your check doesn't arrive. All of that has the effect, just a little over time, of cutting more and more people out of the system, fewer and fewer people who will get what they paid for.

How do they do that? Well, they shut down the phone system. So, if you have got a problem and you try to call to get it straightened out, no. Donald Trump and Elon Musk want to just shut that down so that that is not available. They are closing Social Security offices. So, instead of being able to go to the office near your home, you may have to drive an hour or 2 hours or 3 hours to get to a Social Security office.

What if, in your sixties, in your seventies, in your eighties, in your nineties, you are not able to drive, and you

can't get to that office? Well, you either give up or you find somebody who will be able to take you there. But even after you get there, you can't get the problem solved because there aren't enough people. We are already hearing about lines that are 50 people long and that it takes 4 and 5 hours to make your way through a line, which is a pretty tough burden on many of our seniors. If the Social Security office closes before you can actually get to the front of the line, too bad. See if you can get a ride and come back another day.

So what will that mean? Some people won't start their benefits when they are legally entitled to do it. Some people won't get problems corrected. Some will just give up without getting what they are legally entitled to, which is another way to cut Social Security benefits and cut them and cut them.

Again, why do that? Why impose that kind of misery on people around this country? Only so that Elon Musk and Donald Trump can pay for tax giveaways to a handful of billionaires and billionaire corporations.

This is fundamentally wrong. We need to get our priorities straight. We need to honor our sacred promises under Social Security, and we need to tell those billionaires and billionaire corporations they can pay their fair share to make this country work. That is the fight that we are having on the floor of the Senate today, and that is the fight between Republicans and Democrats right now in Washington. I know which side I stand on, and I see which side the Republicans stand on.

This is, ultimately, what our entire debate is about right now, and that is, Who does this government work for? Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their Republican enablers here in the U.S. Senate are making that clear through their budget. If you want to understand somebody's values, take a look at their budget, and that is true for the budget of the United States of America. Because Republicans are in the majority, they are the ones who put the budget forward, and that is what we are debating today.

It is a budget that is about tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and the pricetag for these tax cuts keeps going up because instead of being embarrassed about the cuts to Social Security, instead of being embarrassed about the cuts to medical research, instead of being embarrassed about the cuts to public education, Republicans are in the business now of doubling down and doubling down again.

The first version of this budget that they put out would have given away about $4.7 trillion--an amazing amount of money that would have been soaked up mostly by millionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations. Then, next round, the price went to $5 trillion. As of this morning, the best independent estimates of the costs of the Republican plan are $7 trillion in giveaways, paid for by our public school kids, paid for by our seniors who need healthcare, paid for by people who rely on Social Security, paid for by cutting medical research, paid for by our Veterans Health Administration, paid for off the backs of the work that is done for families all across this country.

This is a moment in American history when it is put in front of us in the starkest terms: Who do you think government should work for? The Republicans, with their budget, have made clear: They think government should work even better for a handful of billionaires and billionaire corporations. When they worry about the costs, they say: We know how we can fix the cost problem. We will just cut the funding that goes to public education. We will just cut the funding that goes to medical research. We will just cut the funding that goes to the Veterans Health Administration, which helps our vets. We will cut the funding that Americans rely on all across this country. That is where we are right now, and Democrats are fighting back.

Look, we don't have the votes. I get that. Democrats only have 47 in the Senate--Democrats plus Independents. Republicans have the majority of votes. But what we have are people across this country who are saying: That is not what I want. That is not what I voted for. I don't want to see our country do giant tax giveaways for billionaires. I want to see our country continue to support public education. I want to see our country continue to invest in medical research. In fact, a lot of people around this country think we ought to be doing more of that. Let's put more investments in for Alzheimer's, for example. We are getting closer and closer to a cure or at least to a treatment. If we don't find that treatment, we are going to be spending billions more down the line to take care of people who have fallen prey to the ravages of Alzheimer's. Let's invest in research now. It saves a lot of families a lot of heartache. Frankly, it saves us a lot of money--but not Donald Trump and Elon Musk and the Republicans.

They say: No. Let's just cut those research dollars in half.

If that means ending clinical trial programs, they don't care. It is not their problem. They are doing just fine. Cut those programs.

It is bad for our families, and it is bad for our economy, but Trump, Musk, and the Republicans basically just don't care.

It is the same kind of problem with public education. You know, I love Save Our Schools, which we launched just a little over a day ago. The stories have flooded in from people of all ages, people from all different parts of the country, people with all different kinds of jobs right now, who say: Oh, yes, I remember that teacher. I remember my second grade teacher who changed my life. I remember that sixth grade teacher who taught me how to deal with the bullies. I remember the high school teacher who told me I really could do something more and encouraged me along. Parents who wrote in said they had children with real challenges, and it was a public school teacher who stepped up and helped move them forward.

We focus on the teachers here, but it is those in the whole group that have committed their lives to our public education system. It is the busdriver. It is the folks who work in the cafeteria. It is the people who order the supplies to keep it all going, and they all do it because they believe in investing in our future. They believe in an America that we build, an America that gives every kid a fighting chance.

Now, I started out as a public school teacher with kids who had special needs. I really saw firsthand what it means to believe in the worth of every child and to invest in those children so that every child can do his or her best so that children have an opportunity to grow, to learn, to live independently.

All of that is the commitment of our public schools and our public school educators. Everybody is a part of that team because they believe in our kids and believe that this is how we build a future. No nation builds a great future by shortchanging its children. That has been a core part of our American values for a long, long time. Now Donald Trump and Elon Musk come along with a chain saw and say: We are just going to lop those programs off. We are just going to cut them off.

They already tried to fire half of all the people who work at the Department of Education and then decided that wasn't enough, so they turned around and said: Let's just shut the whole Department of Education down.

It is already having an impact on people, and the schools are scrambling to figure out what their budgets will look like. Whom are they going to lay off? Class sizes are likely to get bigger. That hurts every one of our kids. As to the kids with special needs who need aides sitting beside them, they are likely to have to go away. They can't do that work anymore.

It is the whole notion as a nation that we care more about a handful of billionaires getting--listen to those numbers again--$7 trillion in tax giveaways from the Republicans while we just starve or completely eliminate the programs to support public schools all across this country. Budgets are our values, and the values of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and the Republicans that are reflected in this budget-- billionaires over our kids--are the wrong values. Those are not America's values, and now is the time to fight back.

It is a hard time right now. I understand that it feels like we are in a sandstorm, that there is something every single day. We have new tariffs announced yesterday that make no sense at all; the stock market is plunging; renaming the Gulf of Mexico; invading Greenland. There is so, so much going on.

But understand this: There really is direction here, and that is what is happening right now between Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Republicans in the U.S. Senate. That is why all this noise and swirl and speculation are going on very quietly--try to tiptoe into the U.S. Senate and offer $7 trillion in tax giveaways, mostly to folks like Elon Musk and his fellow billionaires; offer them all the money and then tell our schoolkids, tell our seniors, tell everyone else in America: You have to pay for it because the billionaires are the special people in this country. They are the ones who are catered to here in the U.S. Senate.

Well, I get it. That is what Trump wants. That is what Musk wants. That is evidently what the Republicans in the Senate want. It is not what Democrats want.

We are fighting back. We believe that billionaires and billionaire corporations ought to pay their fair share. They ought to pay taxes. And we ought to use some of that money to invest in medical research, to invest in our public schools, to invest in expanding Social Security, to invest in the Department of Veterans Affairs so that we are honoring our promises to our vets. This is about who the government works for.

Trump, Musk, and the Republicans want a government that works even better for billionaires. Democrats are fighting for a government that works better for everyone else.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1647 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, Trump and the Republicans can tell lies about what they are doing, but votes don't lie. Republicans just voted to say that there is no billionaire rich enough that they don't need a new tax break. So what about giant corporations? The year after Trump's last tax giveaway, Amazon paid zero dollars in taxes. The typical Boston public school teacher paid about $10,000.

Can we agree that no billionaire corporation--like Amazon, Tesla, or Exxon--that makes over $1 billion a year in profits should get another tax handout? Yes or no?

I yield, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, Exxon paid nothing. A Boston public school teacher paid $10,000 after those tax cuts. I will take that as a no.

I am ready for a vote, and I will accept a voice vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 1647

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I am very grateful to the Senator from New Jersey for coming to the floor for such an extended period of time to give voice to all of those around this country whose voices evidently are not heard by the Republicans in the U.S. Congress.

I wanted to ask a question for the 73 million people who are beneficiaries of the Social Security System and for their families--for the people whose grandmas are getting Social Security, for the people whose cousins or whose dads died who were getting Social Security benefits, about what is happening right now between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, our current co-Presidents, and what they are trying to do to the Social Security System.

So I start this question with just a basic observation. Social Security is not charity. It is not something we give away to those who are less fortunate and we do this out of the goodness of our hearts. Social Security is a contract that people who work in America pay into; it is the system for all of their working lives. When the time comes that they retire or something happens to them and they are not able to do that work, they can count on the Social Security System and the payments they are legally entitled to. I want to underscore here ``legally.''

Now, if America wanted to change that contract, the place they have to go is right here, to Congress.

They have to come to the U.S. Senate or they have to go to the U.S. House of Representatives, and they have to say: We actually want to change benefits for Social Security recipients.

By the way, that has happened dozens and dozens of times in our history, up through the late 1980s, when we made adjustments in the Social Security benefits--for example, for the fact that people lived longer, for the fact that people worked longer, and so we made minor adjustments in the system. We also made adjustments to make sure that there were cost-of-living changes in how much Social Security would pay out.

So anyone who wants to change the benefits that people are legally entitled to has to come here to Congress and make that happen.

But it appears that Elon Musk and Donald Trump have tried to figure out an end run, and the end run is to say: OK. We can't directly change benefits, but what we can do is we can effectively cut off benefits.

Now, how can they do that? Well, one way is to fire all the people who help people get their Social Security benefits. Think of it this way: There is someone who wants to collect Social Security. Let's just say, at age 66, they decide, ``I am ready. It is time for me to retire. I can't do this anymore. I want to collect my Social Security benefits,'' and they try to fill out the form. It turns out it gets rejected. There is a number off somewhere in the system. Somebody has gotten confusion on what the name is or where somebody worked or an employer from decades back failed to fill out the right form, so now there is a problem in the system.

So what does a person do? Well, first, they might try calling, but if you fired the people who answer the phones, that is not going to work. OK. So what is the next thing you do? You go to your local Social Security office. Oh, but if they close the Social Security office near you, that is not going to work. So what do you do? You go to the Social Security office that you can find that is 2 hours away, 3 hours away, 4 hours away. You finally get through to that Social Security office, and when you get there, if they have fired most of the people, you may encounter what? Two people working the desk to help straighten out problems and a line that is 50 people long.

By the way, these come from real stories. People are telling us what is happening out there.

So by the time the day is over, our example here hasn't even made it to the front of the line. So he doesn't get the question answered. He doesn't get the problem resolved. He has to go back home again and has to find somebody who can maybe take him to the Social Security office that is hours away and start this process over and over and over.

If this person--let's just say for example it takes 3 months to get this problem ultimately resolved by the Social Security Administration. They don't get the money. That money is lost. It just simply is gone. They do not get the money they are legally entitled to, and they have no right to go back and collect it, even pointing out that it was Social Security's error.

So the failure to correct these errors or to give people an opportunity to correct these errors is effectively the same as having cut their benefits. When you do that for 1 percent of the people, you drive up your error rate. When you do that for 5 percent of the people or when you do that for 10 percent of the folks who are getting Social Security--and, man, those cuts really start to add up--they really start to add up for the people whose benefits are cut. They really start to add up for Donald Trump and for Elon Musk.

Let's look at another possibility here, and that is just simply delay. Checks don't go out on time. When checks don't go out on time, then the promise that people relied on that that check would come on the 3rd of the month is what they count on for rent. That is what they count on to put groceries on the table. That is what they count on to support themselves. It is gone.

So maybe he will get the check next month. Another billionaire Republican,

Howard Lutnick, said: Don't worry about it. His mother-in-law would simply count on the fact that they would straighten the problem out, and maybe next month, she would get her payment. I suppose if your son- in-law is a billionaire, you can count on the fact that somebody will make sure your rent gets covered and groceries are on the table, but for the 70 million Americans who rely on that check coming in every month, it is not so clear what you are going to do.

So what do you do? Do you borrow money to make rent? Do you call on relatives if you have them? Whom do you go to to be able to make it to the end of this month and, if the problem persists, to the next month and the next month? Where do you go?

That is, in my view, as much a benefit cut as Congress's having voted to say: We are just going to give a 10-percent across-the-board cut to everyone who receives Social Security benefits.

There are a lot of ways to cut benefits, and breaking your promise to 73 million Americans is a benefit cut. It is not a legal benefit cut, but it is an effective benefit cut.

I admire the Senator from New Jersey for being here today to speak out for those Americans who face these kinds of cuts and have no recourse. I admire him for standing up and saying to the Republicans who won't go do townhalls and who won't go out and meet with these people and listen to them: Listen to their concerns. Listen to their fears. Listen to their stories about what happens as thousands and thousands more Social Security employees are fired. Correcting problems and straightening out your benefits gets harder and more out of reach for more and more Americans. That is what we face right now.

So the question that I want to pose to the Senator from New Jersey is this: At a time when Donald Trump and Elon Musk are looking for an indirect way to cut Social Security benefits--and let's just pause here, if I can, to say, Why?

Why go out of your way to cut Social Security benefits?

Come on now. There are 73 million Americans who rely on this. This has been the backbone of America's promise to its own people that you did the work, you put in the money, and now you are entitled to the benefit on the other side.

Why are they doing this? Because they want to reduce the amount of money that is available for Social Security and instead take that money over so that they can advance tax cuts for billionaires and billionaire corporations. They are just trying to grease the skids here for the billionaires to get even richer and ask the 73 million Americans who rely on Social Security to pay for it out of their own hides.

So the question I have for the Senator from New Jersey is, When Elon Musk and Donald Trump are determined to try to use a backdoor way to cut Social Security benefits, A, are they acting legally, and B, how do we put a stop to this?

(Mr. SHEEHY assumed the Chair.)

That is true.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his work today in defending the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and highlighting again the importance of this work from CFPB to help level the playing field just a little between the billionaire banks and our hard-working servicemembers and families that are living paycheck to paycheck.

I also want to thank Senator Booker for coming here and talking today about how people from New Jersey have been directly affected by overdraft fee abuses and appreciate his work on this.

President Trump and Republicans promised the Americans that they would lower their cost of living. Instead, they are now linking arms with some of the biggest banks in the country to impose billions of dollars in fees on working families.

Today, Republicans are voting to overturn a CFPB rule that prevents big banks like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo from saddling customers with hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees when a customer overdraws a checking account by only a few dollars.

Let's be clear: This rule covers only the biggest banks, those with more than $10 billion in assets. Community banks are completely exempt from this.

All this rule does is ensure that overdraft fees are reasonable. Under the rule, banks are allowed to recoup all of their costs and all of their losses associated with providing overdraft. That is, typically, under $5, which is why the CFPB's rule generally caps overdraft fees at $5. But if the bank can show its costs are higher, then they charge the full amount of their actual costs and losses.

What the banks cannot do is play a game of gotcha in which the bank manipulates the customer's account to hit the customers with hundreds of dollars in overdraft charges.

Today, a handful of giant banks are charging about $35 per bounced payment, squeezing families for far more than what it typically costs to offer this overdraft. And consumers carrying the vast majority of these fees are disproportionately low-income Americans, with the typical customer who gets caught with overdraft fees ending up paying more than $400 a year.

Now, $400 can be the cost of a mortgage payment or rent for someone with a modest income; $400 can be the difference between their kid's medication or just going without; $400 for some families can be several weeks' worth of groceries. This money matters to millions of families.

Altogether, the CFPB rule saves American families up to $5 billion a year. Republicans claim they care about lowering costs, but overturning this rule will make big banks richer and hard-working families poorer.

The Republicans are deeply sympathetic--deeply sympathetic--to giant banks. They worry about poor little Wells Fargo. They shed a tear for JPMorgan's extra billion dollars in profits that they make from overdraft fees on top of $27 billion they make in their other banking services.

Yes, the Republicans worry about those giant banks and that $5 billion that they would have to forgo if they could only charge $5 on an overdraft fee.

Look, banks can survive with limits on overdraft fees. How do we know that? Because they are already doing it. In fact, many banks, including Capital One and Citibank, have eliminated overdraft fees entirely, and they are still making billions of dollars in profits.

No, these fees are about kicking hard-working Americans when they are down.

My constituent April from Massachusetts shared this:

During the years of my life when money was always tight,

nothing was more stressful than overdrafting my account by $1

only to lose $35 due to overdraft. More than once, that

additional $35 loss tangled up my budget for multiple

paychecks or made the difference between getting groceries or

not.

Joan, also from Massachusetts, talked about how insidious these fees can be.

Several times when money was tight, I refilled my account a

bit too late. I was charged an overdraft fee that then itself

caused the next check to bounce, causing another fee. On top

of that, there were daily fees because overdraft charges kept

me behind even as I added money to the account.

To make matters even worse: These abusive, anti-consumer practices often target servicemembers and military families.

Last year, the CFPB ordered Navy Federal Credit Union to refund $80 million in illegal surprise overdraft fees, which they had charged servicemembers, even when the servicemembers' accounts showed enough money to cover the transactions.

Cracking down on abusive overdraft practices, particularly when they harm servicemembers, has bipartisan support. A year ago, my then- colleague JD Vance and I launched an investigation into another credit union that had preyed on servicemembers with extortionate overdraft fees. I hope to see the same bipartisan concern now and support for the CFPB rule that puts a stop to this squeeze on military families.

Look, finally, I just want to mention: I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle are concerned about debanking. Now debanking is something that happens when a bank closes someone's account without any real explanation.

Overdraft practices have been the reason for tens of millions of account closures, shutting out far too many Americans from our banking system. So for everyone who has concerns about debanking, consider that the CFPB rule eliminates one of the main excuses that banks have used for debanking their customers.

Look, our job is to lower costs for American families, not boost profits for giant banks. A vote against today's CRA is a vote to protect those families

and save them $5 billion a year. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

I yield the floor.