Floor Statements

Mr. President, last week, President Trump gave two orders to the U.S. military that were astonishing even by this administration's standards.

First, he ordered the Department of Defense to be renamed the Department of War, a political theater exercise designed to sound tough while distracting from the real issues facing the Nation. Second, he ordered a military strike on a speedboat operating in the Caribbean, reportedly killing 11 people on board.

In response to the attack, Venezuela has placed its military on high alert, and we are one miscalculation away from a shooting war no one in this Chamber has authorized.

Rather than rebranding itself, the Pentagon should be providing to Congress and the public answers. For example, the intelligence that justified that strike on the vessel, the legal authority the President relied upon, and an assurance that we are not drifting toward another undeclared war.

The Department of Defense was named as such after World War II for a reason. It was a deliberate statement from America's military that we are not a tool of conquest but a shield designed to deter aggression, defend the

Constitution, and keep the peace. Reverting to the old name would not make us safer. It would send exactly the wrong message to the world at a time when tensions are already dangerously high.

Changing the name of the Department of Defense will not improve military readiness, will not strengthen deterrence. It will not prevent a single conflict. What it will do is signal to the world that America is abandoning its role as a stabilizing force and embracing a posture of quasi--or real--permanent warfare.

I am deeply concerned about the President's military actions in the Caribbean, which were taken without congressional authorization, without clear legal justification, and without any evidence presented that it was necessary to protect the United States or its forces from an immediate threat. Now, nearly a week out after the operation and amid threats of additional actions, the administration is just beginning to brief Congress on these issues.

I want to be very clear. We all share a commitment to protecting the American people from transnational criminal organizations. Cartels are violent and dangerous, and they cannot be allowed to traffic across our borders. But we cannot allow that Homeland Security mission to become a blank check for war, for military action directed at civilians. We cannot let one man's impulsive decision making entangle this Nation in another conflict we neither need nor want nor care for.

Last week's strike was no minor confrontation. This was a deliberate, lethal use of American military power. Press reports suggest that the operation was carried out by an attack helicopter or MQ-9 Reaper drone. Neither of those platforms are typically deployed to warn a vessel to stop. Those aircraft are designed for precision strikes. There is no evidence--none--that this strike was conducted in self-defense.

That matters because under both domestic and international law, the U.S. military simply does not have the authority to use lethal force against a civilian vessel unless acting in self-defense. At most, and only in extraordinary circumstances, warning shots or disabling fire might be used to halt the vessel posing an imminent threat. That is the standard rule of engagement for U.S. forces worldwide. And there are no indications that U.S. forces attempted to stop, board, or even contact the vessel in question.

Lethal force, particularly force that kills nearly a dozen people, is reserved for moments when there is no other option existing, when the safety of U.S. personnel or vital interests is immediately at stake. No such case has been made here.

The Trump administration has offered no proof that this vessel was engaged in an attack or even that it was engaged in drug trafficking at the time. They offered no positive identification that the boat was Venezuelan nor that its crew members were members of Tren de Aragua or any other cartel. And even if we believe their unsupported assertions, that does not change the legal calculus.

Our Armed Forces are not law enforcement Agencies. They are not empowered to hunt down suspected criminals and then kill them without trial. The Department of Defense's own senior leadership, including the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low- Intensity Conflict, have testified before the Armed Services Committee that the mere designation of a cartel as a foreign terrorist organization does not confer any new authority to use military force. And that is the administration speaking publicly.

Let us be candid about what this means. Eleven people were killed without any apparent justification other than the word of President Trump. If there is evidence that these people were, indeed, cartel members trafficking drugs, it needs to be made public immediately. I would point out that the U.S. military monitors maritime drug movements in this region on a daily basis. For weeks--perhaps months-- surveillance aircraft and other sensors have been tracking cartel operations in the Caribbean. This strike, therefore, was not a snap decision made in the heat of the moment. It appears, frankly, quite premeditated, and it was carried out, in my view, without the legal authority to do so.

Congress received a notification from the White House on September 3 citing a number of reasons for the attack and claiming that the President acted under his article II authority. But article II is not a blank check. The President is the Commander in Chief, but Congress retains the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution exists precisely to prevent unilateral military actions like this from dragging our country into undeclared war.

The law is also clear that any change to the legal and policy frameworks governing the use of military force must be reported to Congress within 30 days. The administration submitted its annual review in February. If President Trump issued a new order on August 8 authorizing the use of force under these circumstances, as has been reported, then Congress should have received immediate notification. And we have not. Section 1067 of the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act further requires notification of any changes to an Execute Order, or ``exord.''

Lastly, section 130f of title 10 United States Code requires a detailed justification for and description of military operations involving lethal force. The Department submitted a 130f notification to Congress, but its contents were entirely insufficient and inconsistent with the level of detail that are normally compiled in such a report. This is a direct challenge to the separation of powers.

If we allow this to stand, then Congress will have effectively ceded its war powers to the executive branch. We will have surrendered to the authorities the Framers to the Constitution invested in us, the representatives of the people, to decide when this Nation goes to war.

And we also must reckon with the risk of escalation. Venezuela has already placed its military on high alert. President Maduro's regime has accused the United States of aggression. If they retaliate or answer by firing on our surveillance aircraft or other naval vessels in the region or responding in kind against U.S. civilians, the Trump administration has already stated that it will respond with more force. Then we are on a path for a shooting war with a foreign nation, a war that no one in this Chamber has authorized and that the American people have not been consulted about.

We have seen this pattern before. Time and again, this President has tested the limits of Executive authority. He has unilaterally ordered major U.S. military operations in Iran and Yemen, and has refused to answer to Congress about these strikes. Right now, more than 2,000 National Guard troops are deployed on the streets of Washington. And earlier this summer, more than 4,000 National Guardsmen and marines were deployed in Los Angeles.

Each time, we have seen the slow erosion of congressional oversight. Each time, we have seen the creeping normalization of unilateral military action. And each time, we have inched closer to a world in which the decision to wage war or to use the military to enforce the law is made by one person alone.

That is not the system our Founders designed. James Madison wrote:

The Constitution supposes, what the History of all

Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of

power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has

accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in

the Legislature.

And we forget those words at our peril. This Chamber must act immediately. Members of Congress must receive a full briefing from the administration, including the intelligence that supposedly justified the strike, the legal analysis authorizing it, and a copy of any Presidential order that reportedly expanded the use-of-force authorities. If that order exists, it must be scrutinized publicly. If the President has exceeded his authority, this body must consider all remedies available, including legislative action to limit the use of funds for further unauthorized military operations.

We cannot allow the United States to slide into another mindless conflict. We cannot risk the lives of American

servicemembers based on secret orders and dubious legal theories. We owe it to the American people, to our Constitution, and the world to stand for the rule of law. We took an oath here--all of us--not to obey the President but to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which is being threatened right now.

We also, as Senators, have responsibilities to protect the congressional powers inherent in the Constitution, not to simply surrender them to the President because of political expediency. Let us reassert Congress's role. Let us demand accountability. And let us ensure that this Nation does not stumble into war by the reckless acts of a single man.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026.

The Armed Services Committee approved this bill in July by a wide bipartisan vote of 26 to 1. I appreciated the opportunity to work with Senator Wicker and commend him for his leadership in this regard and also my colleagues on the committee who worked to produce this bill that we are now considering on the floor.

But before I turn to the details of the bill, I must take a moment to address the ongoing deployment of National Guard troops here in the capital and across the country. Over the past several months, President Trump has drastically escalated his use of the military for political purposes, first in Los Angeles--in fact, a judge, today, found that it violated the Posse Comitatus Act with his actions--and now in Washington and very likely soon in other major cities. The President has abused his power as Commander in Chief to order thousands of military servicemembers to conduct law enforcement in American cities. This is antithetical to the core principles of our country. Our military is there to fight our wars. Police officers, under local jurisdiction, are there to enforce the laws. And then there are Federal laws that can be enforced by Federal authorities, not military personnel.

I have always been a proponent of strong law enforcement and safety in our communities. That is why I supported the COPS and Byrne-JAG Programs, among others. But using military forces to police American citizens blurs the vital line between civilian law enforcement and the armed forces, and it damages public trust. Public trust in the military is hard-won and easily lost. And I fear the President is causing severe harm to that relationship.

These deployments threaten the very freedoms our servicemembers swear to protect, and I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in calling for them to end immediately, this use of military personnel to enforce the civil laws of the United States.

To that end, the fiscal year 2026 NDAA establishes important congressional oversight of Defense Support of Civil Authorities. The bill reinstates mandatory training for all servicemembers on the rules of engagement, domestic operations, ethics, and the code of conduct to prevent escalation during deployments on American soil--legal deployments--under both title 10 and title 32. It requires personnel deployed alongside law enforcement to wear clear service identification on their uniforms and ensures military lawyers remain fully qualified and in good standing.

The bill also mandates reviews of military costs incurred supporting the Department of Homeland Security, reporting on the use of military facilities for migrant detention, and transparency when military aircraft and resources are diverted for immigration enforcement. We are accumulating a multi-multimillion-dollar bill in the Department of Defense for functions that are the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. That is not smart spending. That is not a wise investment in our military.

Together, the provisions I described provide greater assurances that when our troops are deployed domestically and legally, their role is tightly defined, accountable, and consistent with American values.

More broadly, this is a defense bill that is laser-focused on the threats we face. It addresses a broad range of pressing issues from strategic competition with China and Russia to countering defense from Iran, North Korea, and violent extremists.

The bill authorizes important investments in key technology like artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, and hypersonics, and makes real progress toward modernizing our ships, aircraft, and combat vehicles.

Most importantly, this NDAA delivers key wins for servicemembers and their families. It authorizes a 3.8-percent pay raise for our troops and provides important new resources, such as improved housing and barracks, additional childcare assistance benefits, and expanded programs to address traumatic brain injuries. It also strengthens education support for military children and requires more transparency in how pay and housing allowances are calculated.

Our greatest asset in this country are the men and women of our Armed Forces. They deserve and they have earned these benefits. Bringing into the military qualified Americans from all ranks and all sections and all regions, both genders, is critical to the success of our military forces.

Additionally, this bill reaffirms America's role on the world stage. It extends and expands the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and commits the Department of Defense to continue providing military and intelligence support to Ukraine.

It also strengthens our alliances in Asia by fully funding the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and providing new authority for U.S. military cooperation with Taiwan. The bill would help modernize our partnership with Japan and the Philippines and ensure our defense industrial base works hand in hand with our allies to counter shared threats. Importantly, the bill will also prohibit any reckless reductions in our force posture in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

Building upon progress directed by Congress the past several years, this year's bill further improves defense acquisition processes by enabling the Department to rapidly invest in and field cutting-edge commercial technologies. By improving defense small business programs and partnerships with high-tech companies, this legislation will help meet the defense, industrial, and civilian needs of the United States.

Similarly, to compete successfully abroad, our military services and combat commanders must have the resources they need. This legislation broadly supports the procurement of naval vessels, combat aircraft, armored vehicles, weapon systems, and munitions requested in the President's defense budget for fiscal year 2026.

The bill provides additional funding for the procurement of Virginia- and Columbia-class submarines, which are critical to power projection and deterrence around the world. Importantly, this NDAA also provides greater predictability and stability in our naval acquisition programs and improves the U.S. shipbuilding infrastructure through modernization efforts.

And as we navigate the threats of nuclear escalation from Russia and increasing capabilities from China, this Defense bill strengthens our deterrence strategy by helping to modernize the U.S. nuclear triad. It makes progress in ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, our delivery systems, and our infrastructure, increasing capacity in theater and homeland missile defense and strengthening nonproliferation programs.

There are many more provisions in this bill that will help equip the Department and our warfighters with the tools they need to succeed. I look forward to discussing them throughout this process on the floor.

Let me conclude by, once again, thanking Senator Wicker and my colleagues for working, thoughtfully, on a bipartisan basis to develop this important piece of legislation. I look forward to a very thoughtful debate on the issues that face our national defense and our Department of Defense.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Whitehouse to pay tribute to a legendary Rhode Islander, Judge Frank T. Caprio, whose limitless compassion while serving as the chief judge of the Municipal Court of Providence made him a beloved figure not only in Rhode Island but around the world.

Judge Caprio's illustrious career was marked by a special dedication to serving others, and it spanned nearly 40 years with the Providence Municipal Court, where he established a reputation for his empathy in the application of justice.

Judge Caprio passed away on August 20, 2025, at the age of 88 after a long and courageous battle with pancreatic cancer. In his signature optimistic and heartwarming way, Judge Caprio did not let his diagnosis dampen his good spirits, and he continued to spread his warmth to the many fans he earned through the Emmy-nominated television show ``Caught in Providence.''

This show, ``Caught in Providence,'' was a worldwide phenomenon. It was picked up virtually all across the globe, which made him an international celebrity, not just a local Rhode Island personality. Through national syndication and social media, the ``Nicest Judge in the World'' scored legions of admirers.

Following his example, we want to take a moment to honor his legacy, which will undoubtedly continue to live on through the many lives he touched in the courtroom and throughout the world.

Let me be very, very clear. Frank Caprio was a great man. His greatness came from two fundamental principles: He never forgot where he came from and who he came from.

As a son of an immigrant father and a Providence native mother, Judge Caprio grew up in the Italian neighborhood of Federal Hill in Providence, just down the street from the courthouse where he presided.

He learned from his father to work hard and to help others wherever possible. He spoke often of shining shoes to make a little extra cash as well as his father's apt advice to always put himself in the other person's shoes, to understand who people are and what brought them to where they are today.

His message as a judge was never about punishment. He saw people first and sought fairness in justice. He was committed not just to enforcing the law but to doing justice. In word and deed, Judge Caprio exemplified his father's advice.

Speaking with CBS News after his diagnosis--again demonstrating his unyielding humility--Judge Caprio said:

I'm just a small-town municipal court judge, just trying to

do good. That's how I am. . . . [I try] to take into

consideration the circumstances surrounding the people before

me. And remember what my dad told me . . . when someone

appears before you, put yourself in their shoes . . . imagine

it's you before them. How do you want to be treated?

As much as he tried to play down his contributions, Judge Caprio was much more than ``a small-town municipal court judge''; he was the premier example of noble public service and the embodiment of the ideal form of justice, one that focuses less on punishment and judgment and more on overcoming our mistakes, seeking forgiveness, and forging a stronger community.

Before his time on the court, his dedication to service was apparent. He was a teacher, a member of the Rhode Island Army National Guard, and a local elected official. Judge Caprio was also a dedicated lawyer, an accomplished restauranteur, and a business owner.

He also treasured the wisdom his parents shared and valued the opportunities that education brought him. He wanted to see others share in that success, so he worked to create scholarships and served for a decade as chairman of the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education.

Judge Caprio's compassion and generosity inspired the best in others. After seeing his kindness online and on TV, viewers from around the world sent in unsolicited donations to support Judge Caprio's mission-- so many donations, in fact, they inspired the establishment of a fund known as the Filomena Fund, which was named after Judge Caprio's beloved mother. The fund celebrates the generosity of his mother--a trait so clearly inherited by Judge Caprio. Even after Judge Caprio's retirement, the Filomena Fund continues to support charitable work in and around his beloved neighborhood of Federal Hill.

His support for philanthropic causes, and the scholarships he established to support those seeking to make a difference in their community, further exemplified Judge Caprio's work to lift up those around him.

A true believer in the power of empathy, Judge Caprio used his wit, wisdom, and grace to make the world a better place.

He often said:

Kindness is the one gift that costs nothing but means

everything.

A humble and benevolent man of integrity, Judge Caprio was bestowed with the Mother Teresa Award for Social Justice in 2023.

Judge Caprio was a mentor to generations of Rhode Island leaders. I always enjoyed catching up with him over a cup of coffee. We spoke of current events, the state of our Nation, and about our families. I valued his wisdom, optimism, and sensibility, and I will remember him fondly for his generous spirit, his personal example of leadership and, indeed, his many, many kindnesses to me.

Along with Senator Whitehouse, I want to express our deepest condolences to Judge Caprio's beloved wife of more than 60 years, Joyce. I also want to extend my condolences to Judge Caprio's entire family--Frank, David, Marissa, John, and Paul, his children, along with his seven grandchildren and two great-grandchildren, who filled him with enormous joy.

Know that your husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather is a shining example of a great man and a cherished public servant. Through you, his love and empathy will live on.

And now I yield to my colleague Senator Whitehouse to continue this tribute to this truly good and decent man whose life has brought honor to every Rhode Islander.

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, I rise today to urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote on the nomination of Mr. Matthew Lohmeier to be Under Secretary of the Air Force.

The Under Secretary is the second highest ranking official in the Air Force. This position is responsible for running the day-to-day operations of the Department and assisting the Secretary in leading the largest fleet of aircraft and space assets in the world. Most importantly, they are responsible for managing the hundreds of thousands of men and women who make up the Air Force and the Space Force.

I have deep concerns about Mr. Lohmeier's fitness to represent these men and women. While I appreciate his past military service, his record of troubling conduct in uniform, extreme partisanship, and animosity toward military members with whom he disagrees politically is, in my view, completely disqualifying to be Under Secretary.

His record of alarming behavior and statements is well-documented. In 2021, while serving as an Active-Duty Space Force officer in command of a large formation, he self-published a book titled: ``Irresistible Revolution: Marxism's Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military.'' The book argued that Marxism is rampant within the ranks and leading to the collapse of our military and our society.

As he wrote:

To be perfectly clear, the path we are on as a country

leads us to fratricidal and genocidal warfare.

While still on Active Duty and command, he went on a far-right podcast which was known for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories to advertise his book. All this was done without the knowledge or approval of the Department of Defense. Mr. Lohmeier was immediately relieved of command when his book and podcast were discovered.

After leaving the Space Force, he has continued to write and speak about his extreme beliefs. Among his controversial statements, Mr. Lohmeier called the January 6 attack a government-led ``false flag and hoax at the Capitol.''

I would ask all of my colleagues who were there that day and who were in danger if it were a hoax and a false flag operation. I think, honestly, they would admit, no, it was an attack on the constitutional responsibilities of Congress to certify the election of the President of the United States. In that hoax, police officers were injured and killed, and many, many of us were terribly concerned about our safety and the safety of our staffs.

So, if you believe it was a hoax, then you agree with Mr. Lohmeier. If you think it was and is an attack on our Constitution and on ourselves, this is not the gentleman to be the Under Secretary of the U.S. Air Force.

He has appeared on dozens of podcasts and has made hundreds of social media posts about his distrust of American servicemembers, as he wrote in his book:

In one respect, U.S. military servicemembers are no

different than members of the People's Liberation Army.

That is an interesting comparison--equating American soldiers with the members of the People's Liberation Army.

He went on to say:

Each is comprised of humans--

U.S. Army, PLA--

humans who share a common nature. Because we share the same

nature, what Marxist ideology does to the Chinese military

servicemember it will do to the American.

Now, that is absolutely absurd. I don't think anyone in the United States or in the U.S. military will believe that our military will be transformed into a Marxist fighting organization equivalent to the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Yet that is what he is talking about, and I have read a great deal of his writing.

I had the opportunity and the privilege not only to attend West Point but to teach at West Point. I would question his understanding of Marxism and his understanding, frankly, of the character of the American soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and guardian. It is profoundly not only deficient but insulting.

Let me make one point clear: I am concerned that he has a deeply misguided and biased opinion of American military servicemembers and their leaders. If confirmed, he would lead an organization that, like this country, represents a spectrum of individuals--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--of all races and creeds and sexualities. Yet his language suggests that he regards many of these men and women as adversaries to be rooted out and purged from the force. I am very skeptical that servicemembers and civilians who do not share his political opinions can trust that they will not be targeted under Mr. Lohmeier's tenure. This could be a revenge tour in the Department of the Air Force--to get even with those he feels did not treat him fairly. That is not the type of individual you want in the position of Under Secretary of the Air Force.

During his confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee,

my colleagues and I pressed him to explain his extreme positions. In particular, I urged him to pledge to not seek retribution against any military members or civilians whom he has publicly criticized in the past, especially as many of them would serve under him if he is confirmed. He refused. He refused to make such a commitment. That failure significantly increases my concerns that he will be out to purge, to seek revenge; not to serve the interests of the U.S. Air Force and the United States of America but to work his own personal animosities out against those he distrusts.

Ultimately, the Under Secretary of the Air Force is a position that demands wisdom, composure, and character. Our military personnel and, indeed, the American people deserve nothing less. I do not believe that Mr. Lohmeier is qualified for this position, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the nominee.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening Local Food Access Act with my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Justice. Our bipartisan bill would create a grant program for State and Tribal governments to procure local foods for distribution to nearby hunger relief and school meal programs.

Local food systems that connect farmers and fishermen directly to the people they feed can be a real economic driver for communities. These local networks not only support the growth of local farmers and small businesses; they also ensure that food is readily available even when there is a breakdown in the broader food supply chain due natural disaster, transportation disruption, or disease. This bill would strengthen these local food systems by creating a market for producers to provide nutritious local food to children and those in need.

Indeed, the Strengthening Local Food Access Act would support local food systems by helping States and Tribes purchase food from producers within their geographic bounds or within 400 miles of the final delivery destination, for distribution to nearby feeding programs and for use in school meals.

This is a win-win-win. First, the bill supports local economic development by providing local producers with access to the hunger relief market. By establishing a new, reliable stream of orders for small local growers and harvesters, the bill will give these businesses the financial security to invest and further expand. Second, the bill strengthens our domestic agriculture supply chain by investing in local food distribution, in turn helping build local businesses that support durable and resilient local food systems. Third, the Strengthening Local Food Access Act would help combat food insecurity and improve food access by providing fresh, nutritious, local food to underserved communities and school feeding programs.

I am pleased that the bill is supported by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture NASDA, National Farmers Union, and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. And in Rhode Island, the bill is supported by the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, Farm Fresh Rhode Island, and the Rhode Island Food Policy Council. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and in working to include it in the farm bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening Local Food Access Act with my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Justice. Our bipartisan bill would create a grant program for State and Tribal governments to procure local foods for distribution to nearby hunger relief and school meal programs.

Local food systems that connect farmers and fishermen directly to the people they feed can be a real economic driver for communities. These local networks not only support the growth of local farmers and small businesses; they also ensure that food is readily available even when there is a breakdown in the broader food supply chain due natural disaster, transportation disruption, or disease. This bill would strengthen these local food systems by creating a market for producers to provide nutritious local food to children and those in need.

Indeed, the Strengthening Local Food Access Act would support local food systems by helping States and Tribes purchase food from producers within their geographic bounds or within 400 miles of the final delivery destination, for distribution to nearby feeding programs and for use in school meals.

This is a win-win-win. First, the bill supports local economic development by providing local producers with access to the hunger relief market. By establishing a new, reliable stream of orders for small local growers and harvesters, the bill will give these businesses the financial security to invest and further expand. Second, the bill strengthens our domestic agriculture supply chain by investing in local food distribution, in turn helping build local businesses that support durable and resilient local food systems. Third, the Strengthening Local Food Access Act would help combat food insecurity and improve food access by providing fresh, nutritious, local food to underserved communities and school feeding programs.

I am pleased that the bill is supported by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture NASDA, National Farmers Union, and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. And in Rhode Island, the bill is supported by the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, Farm Fresh Rhode Island, and the Rhode Island Food Policy Council. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and in working to include it in the farm bill.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose this partisan rescissions bill because it represents a complete surrender of Congress's power of the purse--one of the singular responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution. It will hurt America's standing in the world also. Finally and tragically, it will cost lives.

We are considering this package at a time when the Trump administration has frozen congressionally enacted funds, illegally impounded funds, and threatened to cancel unspent funds at the end of the fiscal year. Now the administration is back, asking Congress to ratify even more cuts of programs that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis and, in many cases, that were signed into law by President Trump. I know that many of my Republican colleagues recognize the danger this proposal represents beyond its devastating cuts; yet few are willing to oppose it.

The Trump administration claims it has found over $9 billion in wasteful spending at the State Department and at the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, and it points to some seemingly egregious examples of frivolous spending. I won't defend the outrageous waste of taxpayers' dollars. No one should or could. And if we were just voting on the examples some of my Republican colleagues like to highlight, I would suspect that kind of bill would get bipartisan support. But the longer the administration's examples of waste are scrutinized, the more it seems they may be exaggerated or even fabricated.

Indeed, according to a New York Times report yesterday, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought's testimony that $9.3 million was spent ``to advise Russian doctors on how to perform abortions and gender analysis'' was patently false in almost every respect.

Even if we accepted all of the administration's examples of waste as gospel, they don't total up to anything close to $9 billion. But these cuts, if we approve them, will come from somewhere.

As Senator Murkowski pointed out last night, we have been given big, broad categories where funding might be cut, but the administration won't tell us which specific spending they plan to terminate. That was evident in last month's Appropriations Committee hearing with Director Vought, who simply evaded my colleague Senator Schatz' reasonable questions about what specific programs he would cut. The attitude he displayed was: Don't worry; you pass this bill, and we will find the waste and get back to you later.

That is not the way to run a government or a company or anything else.

And make no mistake, the likely decisions by OMB and the Trump administration are likely to be as bad as they

are ill-informed. We have seen this repeated and repeated with DOGE, with Elon Musk making statements of the billions he saved, et cetera, and discovering that those billions evaporated quickly under analysis; discharging people--``unnecessary'' people--then, within days, calling them back. That was the case at the National Nuclear Security Administration. Again, there are not thoughtful analyses and practical programs--just slash and burn.

This bill will eliminate close to $1.1 billion in funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. This would not simply affect funding for National Public Radio and national PBS; it would result in funding cuts for local stations like Rhode Island PBS and The Public's Radio, which would lose about 10 percent of its funding if this bill passes. The same story will play out in every State, with independent local news and civic discourse taking the hit just because of the President's command of the majority party. That is the flavor, really, of public radio because it is so decentralized. Stations in Kansas are covering local news, local personalities, local issues, and it is the same way in Rhode Island. That will be lost.

This bill is also likely to eliminate funding for educational tools, and in the wake of the deadly flooding in Texas and elsewhere, do my colleagues really want to support a package that cuts funding for emergency alerts?

The bill would also cut $7.9 billion from the kind of global assistance programs that are crucial to our national security and our efforts to compete with China economically and diplomatically. These programs are also the embodiment of American idealism and morality.

As Catholic Relief Services wrote:

If passed, these rescissions will directly impact the

United States' ability to protect human life and promote

human dignity; to advance U.S. and global peace and security;

and to foster economic development that benefits U.S.

taxpayers and people living in poverty around the world.

That is from the Catholic Relief Services.

The cuts on the table also include $500 million from global health programs, which could affect efforts that have successfully slowed the spread of infectious diseases, along with cuts to lifesaving humanitarian assistance. One proven program that could see drastic cuts under this rescissions package is the disbursement of Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food, or RUTF. RUTF is a specialty product to treat severe malnutrition in children and could be impacted by the proposed cuts to UNICEF that are included in this package.

Unfortunately, we have already seen this administration's disregard for the lifesaving treatment provided by RUTF. Edesia Nutrition--a key manufacturer of RUTF--is based in Rhode Island, and it has been forced to curtail production and delay shipments of lifesaving therapeutic food, which has sat in warehouses, unable to get to children who need it, because of the Trump administration's needless slow-walking. If OMB really cared about waste, it wouldn't have this food aid and millions of tons of wheat and other crops sitting and rotting rather than distributing it to children who need it to survive.

These are products made by American workers using domestically produced food to prevent millions of children from starving to death. And funds for RUTF have been included in appropriations bills on a bipartisan basis under both Republican and Democratic majorities and administrations for years.

Also included in this bill is $1 billion in cuts to U.N. contributions and $4.9 billion in cuts to international economic and development assistance, and it threatens funding for global democracy. These international assistance programs are not just helping people in developing nations; they also provide an outsized value to the United States, building the soft power and credibility that make us a leader on the international stage and helps us confront our major adversaries.

If we eliminate these programs, we will be ceding that authority to China and Russia, who would like nothing more than to displace the United States' global leadership position. Indeed, if my colleagues truly want to improve the U.N., they need to recognize that every time the United States steps back from an international organization, the Chinese swoop right in, gaining good will and advantage and leverage on critical problems.

We are not part of the Law of the Sea because we have not ratified that treaty; China is, though. And when we talk about precious rare minerals that are in the ocean, guess who is going to be deciding how they will be allocated and what are the rules of extraction, et cetera. Not us, because we are not part of that international organization, but the Chinese certainly will have influence.

These cuts are shortsighted. There is no other way to put it. To paraphrase the former Secretary of Defense, an outstanding marine-- Secretary of Defense Mattis--if we don't fund these soft-power and diplomatic programs, then we need to buy more ammunition. In fact, we need to buy more ammunition anyway, but if we don't fund these programs, we won't be able to afford to buy all the ammunition we need.

I oppose this package on the basis of both its contents and what it would mean for the future of bipartisanship in this Chamber and congressional power of the purse.

Let me be clear. With this vote, we are surrendering our constitutional responsibilities and authorities to the Executive. We are indeed close to violating our oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution--too close for comfort.

I would urge my colleagues to reject this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes and Senator Hagerty of Tennessee be allowed to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote on the nomination of Mr. Anthony Tata to be Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

The position is absolutely critical and crucial. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is responsible for all personnel matters in the Department of Defense, including military families, childcare, family and financial readiness, the military school system, and working with the military services to ensure the health and welfare of the force. It requires a leader of the highest quality of judgment, expertise, and character.

There is no question that President Trump has the right to choose whom he wants in this critical role, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should be someone who is capable, without question, to meet the demands of the job and the expectations of those he will lead.

Mr. Tata was nominated 5 years ago for a position of similar importance in the Defense Department. However, the Armed Services Committee considered his nomination carefully and, on a bipartisan basis, declined to even bring his nomination to a vote. President Trump ultimately withdrew his nomination. I fail to understand why he now would be qualified to oversee millions of servicemembers and their families as the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

I respect and I appreciate his military service, but his record of public statements and behavior toward individuals with whom he disagrees politically is disqualifying for a position of this significance.

Mr. Tata's history of controversial and divisive statements is well- documented. Prior to his last nomination, he publicly called President Obama, the Commander in Chief, ``a terrorist leader.'' And he said that then-CIA Director John Brennan deserved to be executed. More recently, he made unsubstantiated claims that there are ``mutinous discussions'' within the military ranks to sabotage President Trump, and he called for a complete purge of Pentagon leadership, including firing all four- star generals and senior career civilian employees.

I am concerned that Mr. Tata has a misguided and discriminatory view of the military and civilian workforces he would oversee. Our servicemembers and their families and the civilian employees who support them come from all backgrounds and political persuasions. They come from every State and territory in the Union--red States and blue States. Mr. Tata, to be effective, would need to serve all members of the Department of Defense and their families, not just those with whom he agrees politically. His public record and past performance at the Pentagon do not inspire confidence in this great regard.

Mr. Tata failed to alleviate any of these concerns during his hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, he doubled down on his goal of removing leadership seen as not loyal to this administration and gave no indication he would exercise measured and independent judgment and seems intent on furthering this administration's political weaponization of the military.

The worst thing that could happen to our military is it becomes a political arm of the President of the United States--any President. Military men and women take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not to serve a President. That has kept our military not only above the political fray but the most expert, the most credible, and the most dominant military force in history. If we have personnel in key positions that are evaluating people on their political beliefs rather than their merit, talent, and commitment to the Constitution, we are making a profound mistake.

As I hope my colleagues know, my top priority has been national security and avoiding partisanship as much as one can do. I am ready and able to pick up the phone and talk to people in the Department of Defense, regardless of political party. We look consciously--I look consciously--for common ground in which we can work together because, ultimately, it is not about Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, Republican priorities; it is about the welfare and effectiveness of men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. They deserve more than partisanship. They serve cooperation, consideration, and respect for their views.

The American people also deserve that because they are the ones who ultimately are supporting these men and women and not just in a financial sense but in a very, very strong, profound, emotional sense of lending their support, of saluting these brave men and women. I am extraordinarily proud of that.

Having reviewed twice and very carefully Mr. Tata's record, particularly his political--indeed, naked political assertions of going after his enemies, placing him in this position would, I think, put him at a point where he would do more harm than good. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Madam President, I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Madam President, Medicaid is a lifeline for seniors. More than 7 million seniors get care through Medicaid and in two in three nursing homes, residents pay for that care with Medicaid.

The bill we are voting on today takes away key revenue sources from States and nursing homes. Brown University's School of Public Health has estimated that 579 nursing homes nationwide would be at risk of closing because of this bill. Even if nursing homes do not close, they will have to reduce their beds.

This motion would simply prevent any cuts in Medicaid that could lead to nursing home closures, something I believe we all can agree on, and I would urge my colleagues to support this motion.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this partisan reconciliation bill. Republicans have named it the One Big Beautiful Bill, but you would only lose that kind of title if you were trying to hide something. And here is the simple truth: This bill takes health insurance and food assistance away from millions of Americans and gives President Trump's billionaire and millionaire friends giant tax cuts.

Indeed, this bill would provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax giveaways to the country's 902 billionaires and millionaires while kicking 17 million Americans off their health insurance. Just weigh the balance: 902 billionaire beneficiaries with extraordinary tax deductions and tax benefits versus denial of healthcare to 17 million Americans. It doesn't balance.

And despite slashing healthcare, somehow this bill will add trillions of dollars to our national debt. It will further weaken our financial position in the world. It will, indeed, have many countries wondering if the United States is, as it has been since the end of World War II, the place to put their resources, their investments, their reserves.

This could have profound fiscal and monetary implications to the United States, and if you tie that together with this tariff battle, we are headed economically in the wrong direction, as we are socially.

And this bill is loaded with outrageous special interest giveaways and President Trump's personal political priorities; for example, $7.5 billion for wealthy developers to use for luxury housing and other high-priced developments at a time when affordable housing for working families is a crisis in every State in the country; $1.7 billion for gunmakers who will be able to sell silencers, sawed-off shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and other very dangerous weapons and components tax-free, making our streets more dangerous for police and for the American people, and, indeed, especially for the police because they are the first responders. They are the ones that are typically going to the door wondering if the person behind that door has an automatic weapon or some other weapon designed not to hunt or shoot but to kill.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax cuts for extraordinarily wealthy oil-and-gas companies, and $40 million for a Garden of Heroes, a sculpture garden to honor President Trump's favorite historical personalities. And at the same time, it slashes the budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which makes sure that shady payday lenders, mortgage lenders, and banks don't fleece American families.

And, in particular, the military division of the CFPB protects men and women in the uniform of the United States. We were able to pass an interest cap of 36 percent for Active-Duty personnel, and that is going to be ignored because there is no one to enforce it.

And we are going to see, as we have in the past, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen exploited--systematically exploited--by all those little automobile shops and payday lenders and everything else that surrounds every military base in this country.

It is a tale as old as time. My Republican colleagues showering the rich with tax benefits and prioritizing favored industries and friends. President Bush joined with the Republican Congress to do that; of course, I opposed it. And by the way, when President Bush did that, we were projected to have over the next 10 years a multitrillion-dollar surplus. Of course, this legislation will lead us to a multitrillion- dollar deficit, and it is interesting because when I was younger, the Republicans all associated themselves with fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, surpluses. That is not the case now.

President Trump exacerbated the situation in his first term by his grand giveaway, but this time, President Trump and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are depriving millions of Americans of their healthcare coverage to pay for it. They are intent on punishing the most vulnerable Americans in this bill simply for the crime of being poor--in fact, in many cases, despite working very long hours and being poor.

I came here to Congress to the Senate after serving my country in the U.S. Army, as the Presiding Officer did with great distinction in the U.S. Navy as a Navy SEAL. I came here to serve my constituents and improve the lives of average Americans, and I think most of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, came with the same goal.

And according to press reports, a few of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are starting to realize that this bill is going to do great damage to their constituents. One Republican colleague has warned that this bill could leave 600,000 of his constituents without healthcare coverage and blow a $38 billion hole in his State's budget. That would be a devastating effect.

One of the other aspects of this attack on our healthcare system is there are some people that believe, well, Medicaid doesn't touch me. It certainly does because when you extract that much money from the healthcare system, what will private health insurance do? They will raise their rates. Everyone will be paying more, and some won't be able to afford it. They will have to go without coverage. And that is going to be a tragedy for this country.

Now, knowing the damage this bill is going to do, one must ask why would

anyone support it? But this legislation is more than just numbers. I have heard from countless Rhode Islanders who are concerned about these cuts during meetings, in letters, when I bump into them at the grocery store, the pharmacy. They have been telling me about how Medicaid has helped them and their families.

I have been meeting, for example, with Christina from Smithfield, RI, for many years. Her daughter Lauren was born with cystic fibrosis and has endured countless hospitalizations, procedures, medications, and other challenges as she navigates her life with this disease. Christina, Lauren, and their family have private insurance, but Medicaid also helps cover the expenses not covered by private insurance for people with serious illnesses who are not able to work.

When President Trump and congressional Republicans began proposing these cuts to Medicaid, Christina told me:

Lauren was born with CF, a rare, genetic, progressive

disease which affects her lungs, GI, and Endocrine systems.

I had no idea we carried this gene. When Lauren was born

she spent a month in the hospital. We almost lost her. When

she was 5, she contracted a germ that put her in the hospital

for a month and almost killed her. Her lung function fell to

70 percent. At 13, I thought she was going to die. Her

hospital stays were every 3 months for 2 weeks with IV

treatments. Her lung function fell to 30 percent.

With one of the medicines for CF, she was able to finally

get her lung function back to 65 percent at 23 years old. She

still suffers every day, just trying to breathe is difficult.

If she catches the common cold, it could put her in the

hospital. She has a hard time keeping weight on and her GI is

a disaster. She spends hours in the bathroom. She developed

CF-related diabetes, which always puts her in danger.

Every day is rigorous treatments and medications, just to

stay alive. It is with the help of the NIH and the FDA that

she is still alive. Please do not make these cuts.

If Medicaid is cut, when she is 26, two years from now she

will have no way to pay for all her hospitalizations,

medications, and treatments. Few could afford to keep her

alive.

It is this simple. Without Medicaid she will die. We need

your help!

Carolina from Central Falls, RI, shared similar concerns for her daughter.

My daughter has special needs, and we rely on Medicaid for

her needs. Not having Medicaid would create a sink hole for

us.

People with profound autism need lifetime, 24/7 care. As

you consider budget cuts, it is important to me as your

constituent that you work to ensure that this vulnerable

population has access to the critical supports that it needs

to survive. I will be looking to you for your courage and

leadership.

Indeed. And now we are looking across the aisle for courage and leadership to reject this flawed bill.

I received an email from one constituent, Wally from Cranston, RI. She is a 71-year-old retiree on Medicare. Her husband is 72, with Alzheimer's disease, living in a nursing home under hospice care and relying on Medicaid for his healthcare. She wrote to me that she was ``terrified at all the cuts to programs and services'' that she and her husband so desperately rely on. Without Medicaid, she wonders if she or her husband would be able to continue receiving care.

I also heard from Diane in Coventry, RI, whose daughter gets lifesaving care through Medicare. Diane said:

Medicaid is important to me personally. Medicaid matters to

my family. My 15-year-old daughter suffered a brain bleed and

a stroke at age 5. It came out of nowhere and was very

unexpected. She has spent a lot of time in the hospital,

rehabilitation services, doctors' offices, appointments, etc.

over the past almost 10 years. Medicaid allows her to be home

and taken care of on a daily basis. Without Medicaid, she

would not be able to receive hospital level care at home. She

wouldn't have a wheelchair or any other durable medical

equipment. She wouldn't be able to get her life saving

medications or the nourishment she needs through her G tube.

Please, I urge you to save Medicaid not only for my family,

but millions of others. All of our lives depend on it.

Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say: We are not going to cut these people's Medicaid; we are just going after the fraudsters, the freeloaders who aren't working.

Now, who exactly are these fraudsters and freeloaders? Is it the elderly patient who needs expensive nursing home care? Is it the child with a serious, chronic health condition? Should we cut off these people's access to healthcare because they can't work, they physically cannot work, or because the constant paperwork requirements got lost in the shuffle?

Let's be clear. If my colleagues were serious about eliminating fraud, they would be providing States with more resources to investigate questionable claims and bad actors. Medicaid coverage is not extravagant; it is a lifeline. If my colleagues were sincere in their claims that these cuts are to protect the program ``for the people who need it the most,'' as the majority leader has claimed, then they would be investing the so-called savings back into Medicaid instead of blowing it on tax cuts for the well-off. Instead, this bill is cutting funding to States for Medicaid, and States will have no choice but to pick and choose who will get access to care.

But don't take my word for it. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that this bill will cause nearly 17 million Americans to lose their health insurance--17 million people. That is not fraud. It is just making it harder for people to get healthcare.

On top of that, even if you are one of the lucky ones who gets to keep your Medicaid, will you still be able to get care?

Nursing homes rely on Medicaid. More than 6 in 10 nursing home residents in Rhode Island are on Medicaid. As Medicaid funding is cut, what will nursing homes do? I imagine some will have to close their doors or dramatically reduce the number of beds.

So you can be one of these fairly well-to-do Rhode Islanders trying to get mom in a nursing home and you are willing to pay, but if it is closed or there are only 5 beds where there used to be 20, she is going to be where, in my generation, grandparents were: in the living room in a hospital bed being cared for--in those days, typically by your mother.

So this approach to Medicaid is going to touch every aspect of American life, and the same can be said about the community healthcare centers. Medicaid makes up a huge portion of the operating budget for community health centers, which provide primary, dental, and behavioral care to more than 200,000 Rhode Islanders. That is roughly one in five Rhode Islanders.

It is hard enough to find a doctor now; it will only get harder if a community health center closes its doors and thousands of patients don't have a doctor anymore. And where do all those patients end up when they can't get routine care? The emergency room. That means there will be lines out the door, and if you have a serious health event and need to get in, you better get used to waiting a long time.

This is not how a health system is supposed to run. And in Rhode Island, our health system is already on the brink. People are just getting by. People are waiting in the hallways of ERs for a bed upstairs. People are spending days on the phone trying to find a doctor.

We should be making these things better, not worse. But, again, Republicans' main priority seems not to be the physical or financial health of everyday Americans; it is providing massive tax cuts to President Trump's billionaire and millionaire friends.

There is certainly nothing wrong with being successful, and there is nothing wrong with wealth. That is something that has been part of the American dream since our beginning. But what it requires is opportunity, and one of the fundamental opportunities it requires is good health and good education. What this bill will do is destroy our healthcare system and force the States to make dramatic cuts to the education system. We are shutting down opportunity in America while we enrich the wealthy elite.

The American dream, as I believe it, is about the middle class and a government that is focused on them, not taking $1 trillion from Medicaid so Republicans can gift to those who have already benefited from many other gifts.

Let's put the enormity of this transfer to the wealthiest in perspective. There are about 128 million households in America. Yet somehow this bill gives the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households a $250,000 tax cut--a giveaway that is over three times larger than what the median American household makes in a year.

When confronted with this point, Republicans consistently try to hide the ball. Middle- and working-class Americans are getting tax cuts too, they say. Who cares if the rich get richer? Well,

the Senate bill raises taxes on the lowest income Americans--the same families from whom Republicans are ripping away healthcare and other benefits.

While we are voting on this bill without a full analysis of its impact on households, the Congressional Budget Office found that the House-passed version would take around $1,600 away from these lowest income households each year after accounting for tax changes and benefits cuts. And it is not just low-income Americans. Researchers at Penn's Wharton School of Business have found that most Americans lose money under the House bill in future years too.

I want to be crystal clear. We need to reform our tax system. We need to make it fairer for working Americans, not just for the ultrawealthy. We hear from people so often that government is broken. They are right. Our tax system is unfair and needs reform. But giving the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans an extra quarter of a million dollars every year is not fixing the government; it is just adding to the sense of unfairness and brokenness that so many citizens feel.

We can do a bipartisan tax bill that is both fully paid for and that helps average Americans. In fact, we almost did that last summer when the House passed a tax bill 357 to 70 that would have extended the child tax credit and reinstated tax cuts for businesses without increasing the deficit. Forty-eight bipartisan Senators voted for that bill in this very Chamber, but it was blocked because Republican leaders wanted to pass something like this bill before us today.

My Republican colleagues have drafted a bill that is neither paid for nor helps most Americans. Worst of all, they have chosen to take from the poor and the middle class and the working class to give to billionaires.

This bill is very bad policy. It is almost un-American if you believe that the essence of America, as expressed by one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, is to give every person a fair chance in the race of life. This bill denies that chance to millions and millions of Americans while enhancing and filling the pockets of the wealthiest, and I oppose it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motion to commit for the bill H.R. 1 be printed in the Congressional Record:

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to

eliminate any provisions that change State provider taxes and

eliminate any provisions that would lead to any nursing home

closures.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motions to commit for the bill H.R. 1 be printed in the Congressional Record:

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to

strike chapter 1 of subtitle B of title VII;

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to

strike provisions that reduce or eliminate Medicaid benefits

or shift costs to States;

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to

increase the Federal medical assistance percentage to 90

percent for all Medicaid beneficiaries; and

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to

ensure the bill increases average, annual, after-tax-and-

transfer resources for each of the bottom three deciles of

households by income in each year from 2026 through 2034.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 1582, the GENIUS Act.

I believe that this legislation as it is currently drafted is fundamentally flawed. It exposes taxpayers, consumers, and the financial system to unacceptable risk, and it creates venues for criminals, terrorists, and rogue governments to finance their illicit activities. Despite these dangerous flaws, we will not have the opportunity to offer one, single substantive amendment, and with a bill of this nature, the legislative process should require a very significant amendment process.

This legislation before us places the government's stamp of approval on so-called stablecoins, which are crypto dollars that could be minted by anyone--Amazon, Walmart, Facebook, X, the Trump family, and even foreign companies. It gives stablecoin issuers an enormous privilege: a U.S. Government license to effectively create dollars without demanding very much of anything in return.

Here is how the business works. You give a stablecoin company a dollar. The company gives you back an IOU that is recorded on a blockchain. The stablecoin company takes your dollar and invests it in various assets that generate interest and yield. The company keeps that interest and yield, but it is supposed to give you back your dollar whenever you ask for it. You can also take the IOU, which you receive for your dollar, and transfer it to other people, and you can use it to buy other things, mostly other crypto.

If this sounds similar to a bank, that is because it is. Banks allow customers to send and receive money. Stablecoins allow customers to do the same thing--just outside the banking system and purportedly in a faster and cheaper way. Now, competition can force banks to do a better job, and it should be more convenient for consumers to transfer funds. However, I believe that competition should come from the merits of the product and the underlying technology, not from regulatory arbitrage as provided in the GENIUS Act.

The light-touch regulatory regime in this bill is premised on two faulty assumptions. First, it assumes customer funds are safe because they are fully reserved with one-to-one backing of all customer liabilities. Second, it assumes that stablecoin issuers are inherently risk-free because they engage in only one activity: issuing stablecoins. But experience tells us that these kinds of assumptions are flawed.

During the 2008 financial crisis, we saw institutions with very similar if not these exact characteristics fail and get billions in taxpayer bailouts. We were assured that money market funds were low risk because they were fully reserved with shares pegged to a dollar. We were assured that derivatives were innovative tools that didn't need heavyhanded regulation. We were assured that Fannie and Freddie were safe because they engaged in one simple business. However, taxpayers needed to backstop $2 trillion in money market fund liabilities. The government gave AIG--an insurance company

involved with derivatives--a $200 billion bailout, and taxpayers still stand behind $8 trillion in Fannie and Freddie liabilities.

Now, I do not believe it is appropriate to apply the full spectrum of banking regulations to stablecoins, but many more elements of the banking laws and the money transmission laws must be imported into this bill in order to make it work. There are dozens of sensible and basic rules that apply to similar firms that handle people's money. The GENIUS bill says that stablecoin companies no longer need to comply with many of these consumer protection laws. Instead, they can comply with a Federal framework containing very few of them.

Now let me highlight a few specifics that I think the public should be aware of.

First, stablecoin companies could operate with near-zero capital. The bill says that capital requirements ``shall not exceed what is sufficient to maintain the ongoing operations of the issuer.'' This establishes a ceiling, not a floor, not a minimum level of capital that regulators would deem appropriate given the business activities.

This repeats the mistakes of the 1990s and the 2000s, when nonbank financial institutions like Lehman Brothers operated with barely 3 percent capital ratios. When the firm got into trouble, there was no cushion to bear losses, and customers and taxpayers had to step in.

Strong capital is critical. Indeed, in March 2023, when Silicon Valley Bank failed, taxpayers bailed out the uninsured deposits of a stablecoin company to the tune of $3.3 billion.

Second, the audit requirement is calibrated so narrowly that it does not cover a single existing stablecoin company--not one. Independent audits make it harder for companies to cook the books or dip into customer funds. I can't imagine why we wouldn't require these types of audits for stablecoin companies holding vast amounts of cash and securities.

Third, there are no merger or change-in-control rules. These rules, if in place, could prohibit felons convicted of financial crimes and fraud from acquiring a stablecoin issuer. Now, if this bill passes, they can go ahead and acquire it.

Fourth, the enforcement provisions are dangerously weak. The government will need to wait until wrongdoing has already occurred before it can act. It would be powerless to intervene early to prevent people from getting harmed in the first place, and even then, there is no power for regulators to revoke a company's charter. If one of these companies brazenly mishandles customer funds, the regulators will not have adequate tools to stop them.

Fifth, when a stablecoin company fails, it must go through ordinary bankruptcy, and that, I believe, is a mistake. We have seen other crypto firms, like FTX and Celsius, go bankrupt recently. Customers have waited for many, many months and in some cases years to get their money back. Instead, we should set up a bank-like resolution regime, guaranteeing that customers immediately get their money back up to a limit, and the industry should pay for that insurance to satisfy those customers who have been denied their funds.

Sixth, regulators have no express authority to issue new rules to address emerging threats as they arise. Without the ability to issue updated rules, the GENIUS Act will become outdated very quickly. Given the speed of financial innovation, these regulations could be out of date--maybe within a year or less.

Together, these flaws make the GENIUS bill worse than the status quo, and that brings me to what I consider one of the biggest problems in the legislation: the effect on national security.

GENIUS allows foreign-based stablecoin companies to operate freely in the United States. Today, the world's largest stablecoin--in other words, the world's largest cryptodollar--is issued not in the United States but in El Salvador. This stablecoin is called Tether, and it is the biggest beneficiary of this bill.

Let me tell you a bit about Tether. Tether was fined by U.S. regulators in 2021 for misleading customers into thinking that their funds were fully backed. Despite this misconduct, Tether has never undergone an audit, and this bill would not require one.

Tether is used by North Korea. According to FBI indictments in 2023, North Korean IT workers have ``obtained illegal employment in the tech and crypto industry and then asked to be paid in stablecoins like Tether. . . . After receiving payment, they funneled their earnings back to North Korea.''

According to government reports, North Korea has used at least $5 billion of stolen crypto to fund its weapons of mass destruction programs. This comprises between 40 percent and 50 percent of its budget for these programs.

Tether is also used by terrorists. According to the Treasury Department's 2024 National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, ``ISIS and other terrorist groups have moved towards using stablecoins, including Tether, to move or store funds.''

In October 2023, the Senator from Wyoming asked then-Attorney General Garland to open a criminal investigation into Tether because it has ``facilitated significant illicit finance activity . . . including significant terrorism financing for Hamas' malevolent attack on Israel.''

Tether is used by Russian arms dealers. According to testimony before the Banking Committee by the Deputy Treasury Secretary in 2024, ``[W]e've seen Russia increasingly turning to alternative payment mechanisms--including the stablecoin Tether--to try to circumvent our sanctions and continue to finance its war machine'' in Ukraine.

Tether is also used for human trafficking, scams, and fraud. According to a report published by the United Nations in 2024, Tether ``has become a preferred choice for [Southeast Asian] cyber-fraud operations and money launderers alike due to its stability and the ease, anonymity, and low fees of its transactions.'' During a single year, from the middle of 2022 through the middle of 2023, a blockchain analysis company uncovered ``$17 billion of Tether transactions connected to . . . various criminal activities,'' including human trafficking and romance scams.

And the list goes on. Iranian diplomats, Venezuelan oil companies, drug traffickers, ransomware attackers--all are drawn to Tether.

Under the GENIUS bill, Tether could be offered and sold in the United States without being required to meet any U.S. anti-money laundering or sanctions compliance requirements. Tether would just need to demonstrate the ability to freeze its coins if they fall into the wrong hands--a technological capability that Tether already has and that it has apparently refused to use because it still tolerates illicit activity.

Tether would not be subject to full-blown licensure and supervision. Tether would instead need to meet home-country requirements in El Salvador that are ``comparable'' to U.S. requirements, but this term is ill-defined and may be materially weaker than the standards in the United States. In fact, I would suggest those standards are highly subjective given the arrangements we have seen in El Salvador with its President and its legal system. These weak restrictions would not even kick in for 3 years after enactment. That means business as usual for Tether. It means more WMD proliferation, more Iranian oil sales, more Russian arms deals, more tax evasion, more black-market drug sales, and more human trafficking.

Further, if Tether chooses not to meet these bare requirements, then it could not be offered or sold on centralized trading venues in the United States.

But there is a huge exception allowing Tether to offer its stablecoin in the United States through decentralized trading ventures, also known as DeFi. DeFi platforms are exactly where North Korea trades crypto and where the bulk of illicit activity occurs.

According to the Treasury Department, North Korea laundered at least $455 million in stolen crypto on just one DeFi platform called Tornado Cash as of 2022. Last year, North Korea laundered at least $147 million through the same platform.

If these trades occurred with real dollars in real banks, the government would have tools to stop them. But because these trades occur using foreign-issued cryptodollars outside the banking system, the government lacks

these tools, and the GENIUS Act would not give them those tools.

As we place in effect the U.S. Government stamp of approval on Tether, I think it is entirely sensible to be providing Treasury with new authorities to address how Tether is used for illegal purposes around the world.

We should also be looking at the stronger approach taken in Europe, where Tether may not be offered or sold--full stop--unless it is fully licensed and meets all EU laws.

If someone is in the business of creating dollars in any form, they should be subject to full U.S. jurisdiction. If someone creates a platform that is used by North Korea to launder stolen dollar alternatives, they should be within the reach of U.S. sanctions laws. I hope Republicans and Democrats can at least agree on that. But this bill does not respect these commonsense principles.

Last Congress, the Department of Treasury sent up a legislative package with new authorities to crack down on Tether. The Deputy Secretary testified before the Banking Committee about that package. I worked across the aisle with Senators Warner, Brown, and Romney on legislation to implement some of these provisions. Unfortunately, we could not get it enacted.

The bill before us contains none of these provisions. I have filed an amendment to provide these tools to Treasury; but, regrettably, as I have indicated before, we will not have an opportunity be to vote on any amendments.

There is another aspect of this bill normalizing the operation of Tether. It turns out that Trump's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has millions of dollars in financial interests tied to Tether. The investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald that Mr. Lutnick ran and owned manages Tether's reserves and generates millions of dollars in fees. Cantor has provided Tether with working capital through a hybrid debt- equity investment. It has been reported that Cantor owns 5 percent of Tether--a stake worth millions of dollars. Cantor and Tether have just announced a new Bitcoin fund for retail investors.

Mr. Lutnick--the Secretary of Commerce and someone who I think has had some influence on how this bill has turned out and how it will be implemented--says he is divested from Cantor. But what he has really done is turned ownership and control over to his adult children who are in their twenties. Now, I invite the American people to judge for themselves whether Mr. Lutnick no longer has any financial exposure or business ties with Tether.

Just a few month ago, the Trump family began issuing a stablecoin called USD1. This token has already been used by a foreign government to funnel money to Trump. Let me say that again: A foreign government has funneled money to the President of the United States. It turns out an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund made a $2 billion investment in a crypto company called Binance. But instead of using real dollars, they used USD1, the Trump cryptocurrency. That raises, I think, serious questions about a President of the United States receiving significant money from a foreign government.

Rather than doing something about the President's obvious conflicts, the bill expressly affirms that he is able to call his stablecoin USD1. There is actually a provision green-lighting this name. We have given, legislatively, the President the use of this stablecoin name for his financial benefit.

And the bill empowers the President's handpicked regulators to write the rules that will govern the stablecoin business. By authorizing money creation by shadowy offshore firms associated with the President of the United States and the Secretary of Commerce, this bill undermines our economy's most valuable asset--and that is the U.S. dollar. The effect may not be immediate, but I think it will happen eventually.

The dollar is the world's reserve currency because the United States is considered a stable, predictable, and open society with a strong rule of law that countries and businesses want to trade and partner with.

When the United States becomes less stable, less predictable, and less open, when politically connected people get special treatment, when Congress normalizes financial self-aggrandizement by the President, all of that makes the dollar less attractive and makes this country look like it is ruled by a despot.

However, proponents claim this bill strengthens the dollar by stimulating demand for Treasury securities. But that cannot be justified at this point by the data. The entire stablecoin market is only 0.01 percent of the Treasury market. And according to an investor letter from the Elliott hedge fund--now, that firm is run by a major Republican donor, so I don't think this is a partisan description--the dollar enjoys an ``immense advantage'' as the world's reserve currency. But they point out that if the U.S. Government encourages adoption of crypto alternatives, that will ``marginalize the dollar'' and be ``profoundly dangerous.''

Even if legislation would modestly strengthen the dollar, it could not offset the erosion of the dollar that the administration is engineering through actions like sky-high tariffs and a trade embargo with China. And it could accelerate the erosion of the dollar if one day stablecoins become ``legal tender'' that could be used to pay taxes. And it wouldn't surprise me if one day the President sat at his desk and wrote a Presidential order that crypto can be used to pay taxes.

I offered an amendment in the Banking Committee, which would prohibit this by declaring that the legal tender of the United States was the dollar, and the amendment was defeated.

We need to apply real guardrails that will protect consumers and provide real tools for our national security Agencies to address this new technology--real guardrails and real tools, not words on a page that give the false appearance of protection when things go wrong.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this fundamentally flawed bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 1582, the so- called GENIUS Act.

Several weeks ago, when the majority leader said we would have votes on amendments, I took him seriously, and I was one of the first to file. And we could have been voting on amendments--my amendments, those of my colleagues--at any time in the last few weeks, but that hasn't happened.

That is regrettable because the GENIUS Act, as it is currently drafted, is, I believe, fundamentally flawed. The GENIUS Act exposes taxpayers, consumers, and the financial system to unacceptable risk and creates venues for criminals, terrorists, and rogue governments to finance their illicit activities.

Among other things, this bill places the U.S. Government stamp of approval on Tether, the world's largest stablecoin, which is based in El Salvador and favored by North Korea, Russian arms dealers, ransomware attackers, the Iranian military, the drug cartels, and so many other criminal organizations.

The GENIUS Act takes already weak State laws and makes them weaker and applies them nationwide, making it possible for stablecoin companies to operate with near-zero capital and unable to withstand a financial crisis. It is possible for stablecoin companies to avoid getting an audit. It is impossible for the government to revoke a stablecoin company's charter, even if it turns out to be a Ponzi scheme or if an executive dips into customer funds.

The GENIUS Act buys into the belief that the billionaires running the industry know what they are doing and that the marriage of complex financial products and complex technology simply can't fail. The one thing the billionaires do know how to do is protect their interests.

But, not surprisingly, this bill leaves open the door to bailouts, which we have seen time and time again for other lightly regulated nonbanks that got into trouble, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and Bear Stearns.

When there is a run on a stablecoin--and there very likely will be a run one day--the industry will turn to the American taxpayer for a bailout, and the GENIUS Act paves the way for that to happen with no limits on the Federal Reserve's authority to prop up the industry.

Finally, this bill perpetuates Donald Trump's naked corruption. It actually green-lights the name of Trump's stablecoin, USD1, and it allows Trump's handpicked regulators to write the rules of the road governing his most recent business venture.

We need to provide real guardrails that will protect consumers, real tools for our national security Agencies to address this new technology, and real authority for regulators to intervene in a crisis--real guardrails and real tools, not words on a page that give only the aura of regulation and protection with no teeth.

My amendments and those offered by colleagues on both sides of the aisle would provide these tools and authorities. However, it appears that we won't have the opportunity to consider a single one of them and improve this legislation. Because of that, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.