Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for his excellent presentation.

This is an issue which people with little money in the bank never think about. People who are living paycheck to paycheck don't have a big savings account, don't have anywhere to turn. They are the ones who are penalized by the discussion we are having today and certainly ought to pay attention to this debate.

It is hard to believe that recent polls show that consumer confidence in the economy has dropped to its lowest level in 12 years. This comes after President Trump made campaign promise after campaign promise to lower prices on day one. Remember that? He said: We are going to ``make America affordable again.'' But working families in America have not seen any relief; actually, just the opposite.

A month ago, President Trump, turning to his billionaire buddy--the unelected Elon Musk--tried to, in Musk's description, ``delete'' the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I know a little bit about that Bureau. I was one of the original sponsors of the legislation creating it. The idea was to have one Agency of government on the side of the consumer that was willing to look out for rip-offs and to fight, if necessary, to protect the consumers.

Of course, that is the last thing in the world that Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to see. They are the folks who want to make sure that the big banks and the big corporations are not held accountable, so off they went with their DOGE operation for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This Agency stood up to Wall Street to protect consumers when they had nowhere else to turn. And, now, today, hard to believe--hard to believe--my Republican colleagues want to go a further step to strip consumers of protections that went to the benefit of the big banks. They want to gut a rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would cap overdraft fees.

Currently, consumers are charged on average $35 in overdraft fees per transaction. So you write a check for one of your expenses, and it turns out there is some miscalculation along the way, and you don't have the money in your checking account to cover it. That is an overdraft. Well, the charge for that overdraft is $35 currently, on average. It doesn't matter how big or how small you overdrew your checking account.

If a consumer purchases a product one cent over the amount in their checking account, an extra $35 is tacked on to the transaction in overdraft fees.

According to the Federal Reserve, nearly 40 percent of Americans would have trouble covering an emergency $400 expense. Forty percent of Americans do not have more than $400 in cash available to them. For those households, a $35 overdraft fee would be the difference between just making it or falling behind a little bit that day.

The CFPB's rule would cap these fees at 5 bucks unless the bank can demonstrate that its costs to run overdraft services are actually higher. This would save Americans up to $5 billion a year, from $35 on average to $5 for

overdraft fees or $225 for each household that pays overdraft fees.

The rule only applies to banks and credit unions that have more than $10 billion in assets. That is about 130 of the biggest banks. So the community banks--the ones which you probably do a lot of business with--that sponsor the hometown Little League team or help support local charities, this rule would not apply to them. The bank has to have a value of more than $10 billion in assets to be covered by this $5 limitation.

What are some of the banks that are involved? JPMorgan's profits last year were $54 billion--JPMorgan, $54 billion; Bank of America's profits, $25 billion; Wells Fargo's profits, $20 billion. Let me draw a distinction. In 2024, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo both charged more than $1 billion in overdraft fees. However, Bank of America has capped its overdraft fees to 10 bucks. They still made incredible profits to the tune of $25.5 billion. When you crunch the numbers, the big banks' arguments that they absolutely need to charge people these outrageous fees just don't hold up.

That is why I am voting no on this offering to oppose the resolution that would overturn this rule that caps overdraft fees and helps everyday Americans.

I do want to commend the banks that are at least trying to help the consumers. Citigroup and Capital One have ceased overdraft fees, and Bank of America has capped its overdraft fee at $10, underscoring how banks can continue to operate profitably--very profitably--without relying on these fees.

So I am going to oppose this offering by Senator Scott of South Carolina on this overdraft lending fee. I think when it gets right down to it, you have to ask yourself: Is it really costing the banks that much money for an overdraft? If it is, they can charge the consumer. But to automatically penalize them in this way is fundamentally unfair for a lot of people who are struggling. You can talk a lot about the cost of a dozen eggs, but I will tell you what, even a dozen eggs doesn't cost a $35 fee that has been the usual charge in penalty for anyone who overdraws their account. So if you are on the side of the consumers and the families who are struggling with the cost of living, oppose this effort by Senator Scott of South Carolina.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, let me take you back to January of 1985.

Ronald Reagan had just begun his second term as President, and one of his policy priorities was to include the abolition of the Department of Education. What did it finally take to get him to back down from that commitment? Congress. Congress stood firm to protect this vital Agency in 1985.

In a letter to Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican Senator from Utah, President Reagan said that, although he wanted to dismantle the Department, ``the proposal has received very little support in Congress,'' and because of the lack of support from Congress, which would be necessary, of course, to close down the Agency, President Reagan decided not to proceed with his plan.

Sound familiar?

That is because, currently, another Republican President, who ran on the slogan of ``making America great again,'' has suggested abolishing the Department of Education--only this time, he is not consulting with Congress; he is taking steps to do it. Last week, President Trump signed an Executive order to close down the Department of Education.

Demolishing the Federal Agency dedicated to the success of our next generation is shortsighted and deeply damaging to the future of this country. Families, schools, and young people in my State of Illinois and across the Nation depend on the Department of Education. In Illinois, the Department provides critical annual funding for K- through-12 schools to meet the needs of 4,000 schools and more than 2 million students. This includes $652 million in annual Federal funding for nearly 300,000 kids with disabilities.

I can remember a time when I went to school, and it was rare that you saw a disabled child in school. I don't know where they were--they were being hidden or something or held back--but they certainly weren't being given the opportunities they have today.

That also includes $778 million in annual funding for schools enrolling 1.3 million students from low-income backgrounds and so much more. These are kids who are attending schools which aren't in the best and wealthiest neighborhoods. They have got good families who care about their educations, and we give them a helping hand to make sure those kids have a fighting chance.

President Trump has repeatedly promised to ``send education back to the States,'' but State and local funds already account for the vast majority of K-through-12 education funding, and States and school districts decide what is taught in schools, not the Federal Government.

Cuts to Federal education programs and funds will hurt the Nation's students and the communities they live in. Shuttering the Department of Education threatens funding for low-income students and special education, and it makes uncertain the future of Federal student loans and Pell grants.

We all know what a Pell grant is. It is an opportunity for a child from a family of modest means to finally go to college. Funding degrees with these Pell grants opens the door for opportunity. It prepares these students to be part of the future workforce and the economy, and it allows America to continue to compete on the global stage. In Illinois, 226,000 students receive $1 billion in Pell grants to afford higher education--a program that has received bipartisan support.

So what does President Trump plan on doing with these student loans if he abolishes the Department of Education?

Well, they made a proposal. They want to shift the administration's loan program to the Small Business Administration--a separate Agency-- while, at the same time, the President and the DOGE folks have planned to fire 40 percent of the Federal employees at the Small Business Administration.

So follow the bouncing ball here. He wants to eliminate the Department of Education and call into question the administration of a program that literally millions of students rely on to go to school, and he is going to shift the responsibilities for administering that program to the Small Business Administration, which is not a large Agency. At the same time, he is going to cut the number of employees at the SBA by 40 percent.

Do you have any idea what is going to happen as a result of that? Most people know. It is going to be an administrative disaster.

Donald Trump is not trying to move education back to the States. In a real-life shell game, he is moving pieces around until we lose sight of the ball and, in the process, making drastic changes to our education system.

This administration will not stop in its relentless effort to weaken America's public schools. Before signing last week's Executive order, President Trump made significant staff cuts at the Department--already one of the smallest Agencies. He fired more than half the staff at the Department of Education.

Why does he need this money that he is going to bring back to the Treasury by firing these people? Because, of course, he needs to pay for tax cuts for wealthy people. We have seen it before. In President Trump's first administration, he had the distinction of having created more national debt in 4 years than had any previous President. He is out to set a new record this time. It is not that he is just for tax cuts; they have to be tax cuts that really favor the wealthiest taxpayers in America. That is just wrong.

He has fired employees at the Office of Federal Student Aid. He has slashed the staff at the Office for Civil Rights. This means students applying for financial aid will have to wait longer to learn whether they can afford to go to college. It means students defrauded by predatory for-profit colleges won't see the student loan relief they are entitled to.

What am I talking about here?

You can tell the story of for-profit colleges and universities with two numbers: 8 and 30. Eight percent of the graduates of high school in America end up in for-profit colleges and universities, but 30 percent of all the student loan defaults are these same students.

Why this difference, this disparity? They charge too much for tuition. They offer far less education than promised, and the students are often defrauded in the process.

Historically, they have turned to the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education to get forgiven some of the loans they have incurred because of the fraudulent conduct of these schools. Now, of course, in closing the Department of Education and closing the Office for Civil Rights, it denies them their opportunity and their day in court. It means weaker enforcement of Federal laws passed by Congress to protect students from marginalized backgrounds and students with disabilities, and it means the students and families with open cases in the Office for Civil Rights are unlikely to see any resolution.

Meanwhile, instead of investigating instances of genuine discrimination, the administration is laser-focused on targeting universities that do not align with its values, in hopes of suppressing free speech and banning transgender athletes from participating in women's sports.

How does closing the one Agency responsible for shaping our Nation's young people and for building the competitive workforce of tomorrow make America great?

It doesn't. Not only will closing down the Department of Education hurt millions of young people across the country and weaken our Nation's future; it is also illegal. The President does not have the power or the authority to unilaterally close these Agencies. That is being tested in court, and the President is not doing well in those tests.

I want to make sure the Department of Education is efficient, and I want to make sure it is responsive. But the notion that we are going to shift all of the student loans to the SBA is an example of someone who didn't think it through. With fewer employees at that Agency, they will be unable to do the job which they were assigned the responsibility of doing, and they will change the lives of a lot of American students in the process.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) is necessarily absent.

I annnounce that the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to make a unanimous consent request. That is a process in the Senate where we agree on things because no one disagrees--unanimous consent.

I have made this request before. Senator Grassley, who is my colleague and friend from the State of Iowa--different political party, but occasionally we do agree--he has a different point of view. He is likely to object. I will keep my fingers crossed that my speech will be so convincing that perhaps he will change his mind. We will see.

But what we are basically discussing on the floor, at this point, is whether or not, if the court issues an order, a public official has to follow the order. It is pretty basic. It gets down to the daily routine of courtrooms across the Nation.

Now, it has more meaning because there is a question as to whether this new President--President Trump--is going to follow a court order, if it is handed down by a court.

So my unanimous consent request is one on basic principle, as to whether or not people--elected officials--are required to follow court orders. I would like to make a statement in support of my offer.

I have come to the floor several times in recent weeks to speak about unacceptable attacks on the Federal judiciary--the Federal courts--by President Trump and his allies. These attacks are not only wrong but dangerous. It is posing a serious threat to our constitutional order.

I am sorry to say that the attacks on our judges and our judiciary have not stopped, as I have made these requests on the floor. Instead, they have grown worse.

Last week, President Trump himself called for the impeachment of a Federal judge simply because the judge ruled against the Trump administration. The President's MAGA loyalists were quick to pile on when he did that. Elon Musk has demanded the impeachment of Federal judges dozens of times, and House Republicans rushed to introduce articles of impeachment in the House.

In response to this unprecedented attack on the Federal judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court issued a rare statement. It reads:

For more than two centuries, it has been established that

impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement

concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review

process exists for that purpose.

Yet this relentless campaign against the judiciary has continued.

On Friday, President Trump issued a wild rant that read, in part-- this is the President: ``Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our country! These people are Lunatics'' the President's Tweet read.

There has been a lot of debate about when we will cross the threshold into a

genuine constitutional crisis. I pray that it will never happen, but it will come down to a basic principle.

The question is not when we are going to face this. It is whether we can afford to hold our breath and wait to see if the President will formally announce he will defy a court order.

We must respond to the dangerous attacks on our courts and judges now. The Senate must speak with one voice, Republicans and Democrats, in defense of the judiciary, the separation of powers, the Constitution, and the country we love. This cannot and should not be a partisan issue.

Last month, my colleague Senator Kennedy, a Republican of Louisiana, admonished two Trump nominees who suggested, in a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, that the executive branch can ignore court orders.

Senator Kennedy said:

Don't ever, ever take the position that you are not going

to follow the order of a Federal court--ever. Now, you can

disagree with it within the bounds of legal ethics, you can

criticize it, you can appeal it, or you can resign.

Earlier this month, Senator Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, said:

You don't impeach judges who make decisions you disagree

with. That happens all the time. What you do is appeal. If

you are right, then you are going to win on appeal.

These words by my Republican colleagues demonstrate an understanding of checks and balances and our Constitution.

Some have argued that impeachment of judges is necessary because of the number of injunctions issued against President Trump compared to other Presidents. They claim this is evidence that Federal judges are biased against President Trump. I would suggest there is a more obvious explanation: The number of injunctions issued against the first and second Trump administrations is evidence of a President who has repeatedly violated the law.

I also want to respond to the baseless claims from, of all people, unelected Elon Musk and other MAGA allies that the most recent judge to be targeted by President Trump is some sort of radical ideologue. Let's be clear: Judge Boasberg is no partisan. He was actually appointed to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by a Republican President, George W. Bush.

As a DC district court judge, Judge Boasberg has issued many rulings that illustrate--clearly illustrate--impartiality. For example, he was the judge who ordered the release of thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails, and his decisions have favored President Trump's interests on several occasions.

Other judges who have ruled against the Trump administration were appointed by Republican Presidents, including some who were appointed by President Trump himself. He is not always going to win in court, but he seems to think he should.

As Chief Justice Roberts said, in 2018, in response to an earlier attack on the judiciary by the same President--President Trump--``we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.''

Unfortunately, leading Republicans, including Secretary Rubio and Elon Musk, have aligned themselves with the likes of El Salvador's Nayib Bukele, a foreign dictator in El Salvador who destroyed judicial independence in his own country and now is attempting to interfere in our internal affairs. Musk went so far as to endorse Bukele's false claim that ``the U.S. is facing a judicial coup.''

Fortunately, the American people know better. A recent Washington Post poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe President Trump must follow Federal court orders, including 79 percent of Republicans who agree with that.

With strong bipartisan support, America knows no President is above the law, and the danger posed by the Trump administration's attack on the judiciary is not abstract. The recent invective by the President and his allies has resulted in increased threats to the lives of judges and their families.

That is absolutely unacceptable. Our judges should not fear for their lives and those of their loved ones because of their work. If judges feel compelled to decide cases in favor of the President to avoid his wrath, we will no longer have an independent judiciary. We can debate the value of nationwide injunctions and the merits of any particular judicial decision, but violence or threats of violence, whether from the right or the left of the political spectrum, are never, never acceptable.

In December of 1862, in the midst of the Civil War, a month before he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln submitted his second annual address to Congress. It was read aloud by the Secretary of the Senate. It included these famous words:

We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of

earth.

America retains this last best hope of Earth--for democracy, for freedom, for liberty, and justice. It is up to both political parties to protect it. We have sworn to uphold and defend this Constitution. Now, we will be tested.

An independent judiciary has nobly saved our Nation many times throughout history. It is a critical pillar upholding our constitutional order. As Chief Justice Marshall famously declared, ``it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.''

And it is the duty of Congress to support the judicial branch against unwarranted attacks by the executive. For that reason, the resolution I offer today affirms that the Senate supports the rule of law, the judicial branch, and the Constitution.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 136, affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review, which is at the desk. Further, I ask that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the resolution I offered today is short and straightforward. It is not complicated. It simply restates a bedrock principle of our democratic system of government that it is the responsibility of the judiciary to say what the law is, and, second, the executive branch is required to comply with court orders. It is just that simple.

I offered a similar resolution 3 weeks ago. It included some language which my friend from Iowa did not like. I took that language out. I want to get down to the basics here, the very basics.

He made reference to the Dobbs decision. That overturned Roe v. Wade on abortion--a controversial issue in the United States since that decision in 1972 but a decision that was overturned by the Court. There were many who disagreed with the Court's approach to it and said that it was inconsistent with precedent and inconsistent with what the Justices had promised. Yet, when it was all over, no one filed Articles of Impeachment against the Supreme Court, and there were no threats that I know, personal threats and physical threats, on the Justices and their families. There should never be. Violence is never acceptable.

After my colleague from Iowa objected to my previous language, I made it very simple--the simple fact that the Vice President and other prominent officials have suggested that the executive branch may disregard a Federal court order.

This, unfortunately, would be an item of controversy that could really threaten our constitutional democracy, and that is why I have asked that this very simple statement that everyone must follow the law when it comes to court orders be made part of the official record of the Senate.

With those changes, there is absolutely nothing objectionable in this resolution. Yet my colleague seeks to add language that would only muddle what this sentence should make clear. By stating that the executive branch only needs to follow ``lawful'' court orders, which is what the Senator from Iowa has suggested, it then begs the question of who decides a court order is lawful.

This suggests that in some cases, the President is going to decide rather than the judiciary. The responsibility to decide whether a court order is lawful is, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, ``emphatically the province and the duty'' of the judiciary. If the President disagrees with a court order, his only option is to appeal it, and I have added language to my resolution stating that simple fact. Otherwise, the President would be above the law. America does not accept it, the Constitution does not accept it, and we should be bold enough and courageous enough to stand on a bipartisan basis and reject it as well.

The other amendment implies that courts are ruling against the administration because of ``different policy preferences'' rather than following the law.

Over and over and over again, thousands and thousands of times, we have had judicial nominees appear in the Judiciary Committee. But when asked the basic question of ``What would you do in court if you had to make a decision?'' they say ``I will follow the law.'' That is basic. Now, their decision on the law may be different than yours or mine or some other judge's, but the fact of the matter is, they do believe--at least they tell us--that is their bedrock responsibility.

This resolution is nonpartisan. It is clear. It should be bipartisan. We ought to make it clear once and for all that no President--Biden or President Trump or any other President in the future--is above the law. Any further amendment is unnecessary. It undermines the simple, straightforward message which we should stand together and speak.

For these reasons, I object.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote start immediately.