Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.-

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Serena Murillo to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Born in Pomona, CA, Judge Murillo received her B.A. from the University of California, San Diego and her J.D. from Loyola Law School. After law school, she worked as a post-bar law clerk at Shernoff, Bidart, and Echeverria in Claremont, CA. She then worked as an associate attorney at McNicholas & McNicholas in Los Angeles, where she represented plaintiffs in personal injury cases.

From 1997 to 2014, Judge Murillo served as a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. She prosecuted various criminal cases, including juvenile matters, felonies, white- collar crime, and criminal appeals. She tried approximately 68 cases to verdict in State court, half of which were jury trials.

Since 2015, Judge Murillo has been a judge on the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County. From 2018 to 2019, she served by appointment of the chief justice of the California Supreme Court as an associate justice pro tem on the California Court of Appeal. She has presided over approximately 55 jury trials in civil, felony, and misdemeanor matters, nearly all of which were criminal trials. She has also taught as a lecturer in law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law since 2022.

The American Bar Association rated Judge Murillo as ``well qualified'' to serve on the district court. She has deep ties to the Central District of California, and she enjoys the strong support of her home State Senators and the California legal community.

Judge Murillo's litigation background and experience as both an advocate and State court judge ensure that she will be an asset to the district court. I am proud to support her nomination, and I ask my colleagues to join me in my support.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote begin immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to clarify the record on President Biden's use of the pardon power, which is established in the Constitution in article II, section 2.

On December 12, President Biden commuted the sentences of nearly 1,500 Americans who were placed in home confinement under a bipartisan--bipartisan--provision of the CARES Act. These individuals were all convicted of nonviolent offenses and have complied with the terms of home confinement for more than 1 year.

This clemency is consistent with a long history of Presidents using a categorical approach to exercise the constitutional power of pardon. For example, President Kennedy pardoned all

first-time offenders convicted of violating the Narcotics Control Act of 1956. President Truman granted pardons to more than 1,500 men convicted of violating the Selected Service Act during the draft in World War II. President Carter provided a categorical pardon for hundreds of thousands of men who evaded the draft during the Vietnam war.

I understand that Senator Cotton is opposed to clemency in a particular individual's case, but if Senator Cotton is concerned about undermining the rule of law and robbing victims of justice, we should consider just a few of President Donald Trump's pardons.

For example, take President Trump's decision to grant clemency to at least 10 healthcare executives and doctors convicted in large-scale Medicare fraud schemes. These decisions wiped away years of prison sentences and restitution totaling hundreds of millions of dollars for some of the worst healthcare fraudsters in the history of the United States of America.

Consider one--Philip Esformes, who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison for involving himself in the largest healthcare fraud scheme ever charged by the Department of Justice. Esformes received more than $37 million in a scheme involving $1.3 billion in fraudulent claims. Following his commutation from President Trump, Mr. Esformes pled guilty to new Medicaid fraud charges. In October, he was arrested for domestic violence. He was at least the seventh person pardoned by President Trump to be charged with a new crime.

President Trump also used his pardon power to provide relief for his political loyalists, including his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, his former adviser Steve Bannon, and at least seven Republican Congressmen who had been convicted of crimes.

Bannon was charged with defrauding donors of more than $1 million as part of a fundraising campaign reportedly aimed at supporting President Trump's border wall. Do you remember that? He ended up soliciting true loyalists and friends of Donald Trump, saying that he was going to raise money and build the wall that Donald Trump, as candidate, spoke of so frequently. Bannon actually used the money he raised to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own personal expenses.

President Trump has now promised that he will pardon the January 6 rioters on day one of his new administration. He calls them ``political prisoners.''

You remember January 6, Mr. President. I will bet you the Senator from Arkansas remembers it, too. This insurrectionist mob beat down the doors of the Capitol, invaded this Chamber, and took control of this building--to the shame of our country to allow that to happen. And then along comes President Trump, who says: If I am reelected, I will pardon them.

I would like to ask my colleague from Arkansas if he supports pardoning the following individuals who were prosecuted for wrongdoing on January 6:

David Dempsey, convicted of assaulting police officers by using ``his hands, feet, flag poles, crutches, pepper spray, broken pieces of furniture, and anything else he could get his hands on'' as weapons against the police.

How about Shane Jenkins, who was convicted of using two tomahawk axes to break into this Capitol Building and assaulting police officers by throwing a wooden desk drawer and a flagpole at them?

How about a Trump pardon for Kyle Fitzsimons? On January 6--he was convicted of five separate assaults against law enforcement, including one that caused career-ending, life-altering injuries to U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell.

Kenneth Bonawitz--another, perhaps, beneficiary of a Trump pardon when he is sworn in as President again. Mr. Bonawitz was a member of the so-called Proud Boys. He assaulted at least six officers, including placing one officer in a chokehold and lifting him up by the neck. Bonawitz injured one officer so severely, the officer was forced to retire from the police force.

So if you want to talk about misuse of a Presidential pardon power, let's be fair, honest, and balanced. I don't recall the Senator from Arkansas or any single Republican colleague of his introducing similar resolutions to criticize any of President Trump's pardons, and I haven't heard any Senate Republican urging President-elect Trump not to pardon the January 6 rioters.

President Biden's commutations--directed at a group of individuals who have demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation--are far more defensible than President Trump's use of pardon power during his first term and what he is planning from the beginning--the very first day, the day of his dictatorial rule, as he called it--the beginning of his second term.

For these reasons, I object.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, our country demands much of the Senate

Judiciary Committee on which the Presiding Officer serves, and it has been my honor to serve as chair of that committee for the last 4 years. We have worked hard to defend freedom, advance justice and equality, and balance our Federal judiciary.

During my time as chair these last 4 years, we have held 145 full committee hearings, 88 subcommittee hearings, and 86 executive business meetings. We advanced 373 Executive and judicial nominees, and we reported 56 bills out of committee. We confirmed highly qualified, diverse judicial nominees who will be a frontline defense of the rule of law for a generation. Our efforts over the last 4 years have filled the vacancies of one-fourth of the members of the Federal judiciary. We also revitalized the committee's critical oversight rule over the executive branch Agencies under our jurisdiction. We made progress on issues critical to Americans, including protecting children online, supporting women who have faced sexual harassment and assault in the workplace, and implementing critical gun violence prevention reforms.

I want to thank all of the Senate Judiciary members, particularly the Democrats, for their hard work in ensuring equal justice for all and defending our democracy.

I would be remiss not to acknowledge our former colleague, the late- Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. Dianne was a trailblazer and champion for LGBTQ Americans, reproductive rights, and gun violence. We honor her legacy by continuing our efforts on those critical issues.

I am also particularly thankful for the Republican ranking member, Lindsey Graham, and my Senate Judiciary Republican colleagues who were willing to work across the aisle to advance judicial nominees and bipartisan legislation. Over 80 percent of all of the judges approved by the Senate, reported out of the committee, have been approved by a bipartisan rollcall.

Perhaps our most impactful work has been in confirming these highly qualified, independent, and evenhanded judges. Aside from their exceptional qualifications and respect for the rule of law, they represent historic demographic and professional diversity.

Under President Biden's leadership, the Senate has confirmed more Black women to the Federal circuit courts than all prior Presidents of the United States combined, including the first-ever Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court--Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. We have confirmed a historic number of Asian Americans, Latinos, and LGBTQ judges. We have also confirmed more circuit judges who have experience as public defenders than all prior Presidents combined.

During the last 4 years, Senate Democrats have confirmed 233 judges to lifetime positions, and if we confirm 2 more to the Federal bench this week, which is our plan, we will have surpassed the previous administration's record. The confirmations of these highly qualified, diverse judges will help ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice in our Nation. These judges are already making significant contributions to protecting freedoms and democracy.

Since becoming chair of the committee in 2021, I have also made it a priority to revitalize our tradition of oversight of executive branch Agencies within the committee's jurisdiction. We need to make sure these Agencies are serving the interests of the American people, and we have regularly scheduled hearings for this type of oversight. We have had meetings with the Attorney General, officials in the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Department of Homeland Security, making sure that every member on both sides of the table had a chance to question the leaders of these Agencies on a regular basis.

Over the past 4 years, we have made progress in advancing key legislation. Important bills we enacted into law include legislation barring forced arbitration for sexual assault and sexual harassment cases; legislation I authored to sustain the Federal Crime Victims Fund; legislation that I also authored to eliminate the Federal statute of limitations for child sex abuse cases; and my legislation with Republican Senator Grassley to allow the Justice Department to prosecute war criminals. We showed that, when we are willing to come together on a bipartisan basis, we can make progress.

We also unanimously reported several bills to help stop the exploitation of kids online. Earlier this year, I held a full committee hearing to demand that the CEOs of social media giants Discord, Meta, Snap, TikTok, and X--formerly known as Twitter--come before the hearing. It highlighted the ongoing risks that social media poses to our kids and the immediate need for Congress to act. We didn't get it done in this session, and we must get it done in the next. I believe that Senator Graham, who will continue to serve on the committee, will join me in that effort.

The committee has also led the effort to address the Supreme Court's ongoing ethics crisis. This troubles me. It used to be that issues of ethics before the Court were bipartisan issues in the Senate--not so anymore. At a time when the worst reports are coming out of the Supreme Court of lavish gifts for Supreme Court Justices, this has become a partisan issue--the Democrats calling for change and the Republicans resisting.

I don't know what happened to that bipartisan consensus on ethics, but in looking at the evidence that we have uncovered through committee staff work and subpoenas, it surely is demanding of us to do something. Ensuring that all Supreme Court Justices are subject to an enforceable code of conduct is critical to establishing the American people's trust in the Court.

More than 12 years ago, I asked, in writing, Chief Justice Roberts to adopt a binding code of conduct for all Supreme Court Justices--12 years ago. Last year, the Judiciary Committee reported the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act to the full Senate. It is a work product of one of our members, Sheldon Whitehouse. It is an excellent bill, and I was happy to support it. The bill would require Justices to adopt an enforceable code of conduct so that the highest Court in the land--the Supreme Court--doesn't have the lowest ethical standards of all courts in America.

Our work didn't stop there. We worked on defending reproductive healthcare, curbing gun violence, and dealing with the major issues that are on the minds of the American people.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee's eight subcommittees, which held dozens of hearings on matters under the committee's jurisdiction. I want to thank Chairs Blumenthal, Booker, Butler, Coons, Klobuchar, Ossoff, Padilla, Whitehouse, and Senators Hirono and Welch for their hard work and leadership in this effort.

Once again, thanks to all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their cooperation. It has been the honor of a lifetime.

Polio Vaccine

Mr. President, I want to make one other short statement.

I remember polio. I remember it as a kid. It scared the hell out of us. Nobody knew what was happening. A kid could wake up in the morning, go to school, look as healthy as could be, and die before dinner. That is what polio was all about--iron lungs, scary results, crippling kids, and we didn't know where it came from. Every conscientious mom had a theory. My mom said playing in rainwater from the freshly fallen rain in our neighborhood was dangerous for polio. That was her interpretation. No one really knew.

Then came the amazing news that someone had developed a vaccine to deal with polio. We couldn't believe it. No kid wants to take a shot, but to be protected from polio, you did it, and you were happy to do it. I did it when I was a kid in the 1950s. As a result of it, we brought polio under control in this country--a vaccine by Dr. Jonas Salk, from Pittsburgh--a man I will always revere because of the comfort that he brought to families who were concerned about polio.

Can you believe that we are now debating the polio vaccine again in this country; that the nominee proposed by President Trump for the Health and Human Services Department has raised questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines, including the polio vaccine?

This morning, in the Chicago Sun-Times, a reporter named Neil Steinberg wrote an article about this issue. He quoted a statement that was made very recently by Katie Miller. She is

the transition spokesperson for RFK, Jr., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is President Trump's nominee for HHS, which has jurisdiction over many health Agencies and certainly has the lion's share of responsibility when it comes to vaccines.

Here is what Steinberg wrote:

Mr. Kennedy believes the Polio Vaccine should be available

to the public and thoroughly and properly studied--

His spokesperson said. ``Thoroughly and properly studied,'' what a great idea--

Let's look into it! How about taking 1,349,135 [kids across

America] and submitting them to a blind trial at 244

[different] test areas around the country. [Half will

receive] the cherry-red vaccine, and half a placebo, or

nothing. [Then we can really find out. We can really study

and see if this vaccine is any good, the polio vaccine.]

Oh, wait. [That is exactly what we did] in the spring and

summer of 1954--[70 years ago]. To this day, it's the largest

medical experiment in the United States history. Thousands of

doctors, nurses, principals, teachers, parents, and other

volunteers banded together, working for free--the government

wasn't paying because that smacked of socialized medicine.

Gosh, Neil--

Neil Steinberg--

--you might ask, being yourself an inquisitive sort, just

like me, why did thousands of doctors, nurses, principals,

[and others], all supposedly with busy lives, drop everything

to help run this giant medical test [in America] for no

compensation? Possibly because polio was scything through

their children: more than 57,000 cases in 1952, with over

3,000 deaths. A child could be healthy at breakfast and dead

by dinner. That catches the attention of the neighbors and

dials up public spiritedness.

For RFK, Jr., to say that we have to study the polio vaccine at this point is not only sad, it is shocking--shocking that a person seeking the highest level Cabinet position under the Trump administration is willing to be so fast and loose with the scientific truth--1,300,000- plus cases. We were administering it, testing it before we moved forward with it 70 years ago--nothing in the meantime to suggest it be otherwise. It is safe and efficient and effective.

What about all the other vaccines? Polio is the one I am focusing on today. What about all of the other vaccines that have spared children-- measles and rubella and so many other diseases and problems that can be dangerous to them? Now we are going to debate those all over again in the 21st century because RFK, Jr., has his own theories on vaccines?

Listen, I am willing to meet with RFK, Jr., and ask him, point blank, what his position is. And I will tell you this: If he is going to be the scourge against vaccinations across America, he is in for a fight, because what is going to happen, sadly, is a lot of innocent children and innocent people are going to be hurt as a result of it.

Coincidentally, just before the 1954 test began--1.3 million people-- radio commentator Walter Winchell went on the air to warn the vaccine may be a killer and that the authorities were stockpiling little white coffins just in case. The next week, 10 percent of the kids were pulled out of the experiment by worried parents. We have been through this before, and, thank God, cooler heads and smarter minds prevailed. If we have to go through it again, it is worth the fight.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Congressional Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of my jobs in this Congress is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and considering hundreds of nominees for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. It has been quite a process. About 80 percent of those who have gone through have been on a bipartisan basis, which is a good thing, but there have been ups and downs.

There is only one Senator who is able to bring two nominees from her State through the committee without the usual waiting periods because she asked on the other side for permission to move forward. They trusted her;

they liked her; and they gave her an exception. In both instances, Kyrsten Sinema has delivered for the State of Arizona when it comes to Federal judges on an expedited basis, pure and solely by her personality and charm and ability, I might add.

I also want to say a word, I have invested a large part of my Senate career on the immigration issue, and I thank her for her valiant effort trying to put together a bipartisan effort on that whole immigration issue. I know it was a hard break for you not to be able to do that, and I think you really held the key to bringing together both sides in a way that I have never seen in the Senate.

So thank you for trying, thank you for your effort. Congratulations on your achievements. I wish you the very best.

Madam President, I say to the Senator, I want to add a few words to the tribute to you, Bob, and just to take another angle, if I might.

I have been fortunate enough to join you and campaign in your home State. I remember your first campaign and a trip that I took to try to help. It ended with a party at the end of the day, and if I am not mistaken, it was a bank that had been converted into some meeting hall, maybe, in Scranton.

A bar--more appropriate.

I recall standing there with your friends and family, having a drink and a good time, and I am thinking to myself, I could back up a big truck right to the front door here, ask everyone to take their drinks and walk on, take them to the Beverly section of Chicago, open the door, and they could continue the conversation without any interruption. It was an Irish-Catholic, largely Democratic group. They would have been just as comfortable in the environs of Chicago and many other places in this country.

But what I remember is how many members of your family were there. I think you filled the place with family members. It told me an awful lot about the ``Casey'' name in Pennsylvania. It wasn't just a legend. It was more than that. It made a difference in the lives of so many different people and inspired you into public service. I think that was probably the beginning of your commitment to what you have reached in your career--family, faith, and a sense of fairness.

I went back on a bus trip on another one of your campaigns. That is when I met Lieutenant Governor-Candidate John Fetterman and a lot of other of your friends. We went through Bucks County and other places. I have seen you in Chicago. You look just as much at home as you would in the State of Pennsylvania. I think it speaks to what I understand in politics: Family, faith, and fairness can take you a long way. You have made a career out of it. What you have been able to do is to reach out and help people who otherwise wouldn't have had a fighting chance, and that, in my mind and yours too, is why we are here today.

I want to close with this brief remark and just make note of a mutual friend of ours that we talk about all the time. He is a fellow in Philadelphia that I turned to in 1992 to be my political adviser, a fellow named Saul Shorr.

I know that he loves you as a politician and a friend and dedicated so much of his life's work to your success.

And I know that your defeat hurt him as much as it does all of us.

But you will be remembered here, and you will inspire others. A new generation will follow, and they will say: We are keeping up the Casey name. We are standing up for what Bob Casey stood for: family, faith, and fairness.

Thanks, Bob, for being a great friend and a great Senator.

(Applause.)

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to note the fiscal year 2025 NDAA conference agreement the Senate is voting on this week.

Congress has passed a bipartisan Defense authorization bill every year without fail since 1961, a remarkable feat. And in an increasingly partisan Senate, it is even more remarkable.

Every year, when the final text comes, there are inevitably Members on both sides of the aisle who like some provisions and dislike others. That is what compromise is all about.

This year's text is no different. It includes a historic pay raise for junior enlisted troops. It provides continued support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and Baltic security cooperation.

This bill authorizes important military construction projects. It reauthorizes my READ Act to continue quality basic education programs for vulnerable children around the world.

At the same time, it also continues troubling restrictions that make it unnecessarily difficult to finally close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. And it fails to include important provisions I sponsored that would have accelerated PFAS remediation and enabled the skilled DACA holders to enlist in the military to address our recruitment challenges.

But there is one provision in this conference agreement that troubles me, a provision that would ban certain medical treatments for transgender children of servicemembers. It eliminates the ability of military families to work with medical professionals and make their own decisions about the healthcare needs of their own children.

That is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Tammy Baldwin's amendment to remove this language from the bill.

Sixth Anniversary of the First Step Act

Mr. President, I would like now to highlight an important milestone. This coming Saturday, December 21, will mark the sixth anniversary of the First Step Act becoming law. That moment resulted from overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate coming together to pass landmark criminal justice reform.

I was honored to be the lead Democrat sponsor of this legislation, along with the lead Republican sponsor, Senator Chuck Grassley. Senators Cory Booker and Mike Lee joined us.

The First Step Act acknowledges the obvious: The vast majority of people who are incarcerated will someday be released. So we must prepare them to successfully return to their communities.

In the last 6 years, this law has safely and effectively reduced populations in overcrowded Federal prisons, reuniting families and revitalizing communities.

The First Step Act looked toward the future by providing opportunities for the incarcerated people to reenter society successfully. It helped to reform harsh drug sentencing laws of the past and remedy their effects.

I authored bipartisan legislation, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, that reduced the unjust 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses.

Under the First Step Act, the Fair Sentencing Act's reforms were made retroactive, allowing those who still serve sentences imposed before the change in law to be resentenced. I am thankful for the tireless efforts of many dedicated advocates and families who never gave up hope that this bill would become the law.

Since the passage of the First Step Act, 6 years ago, I have met with many Americans who successfully returned home because of this historic legislation.

The First Step Act has been a tremendous success. Of more than 40,000 people released under this law through January of this year, only 9.7 percent have been rearrested or returned to custody. Compare that to the Bureau of Prisons' overall recidivism rate of 45 percent--5 times that number. Unfortunately, some elected officials are calling now for a return to the punitive policies of the past, despite the success of the First Step Act.

Here is the reality: We all deserve to live free from crime, but the War on Drugs, with its inflexible mandatory minimums, did not make communities safer. Instead, the so-called War on Drugs filled the prisons with young, mostly African-American men, and, at the same time, the price of illegal drugs went down, and the use of illegal drugs went up. The strategy didn't work.

The First Step Act shows that we can do more than be just tough on crime. We can be, once and for all, smart on crime and achieve accountability without excessive punishment and incarceration.

It is our job in Congress to thoughtfully respond to the enduring crisis of substance abuse in America. We should provide more opportunities for those who are incarcerated to reenter society successfully, reunite with their families, and contribute to their communities.

And, we need to build on the bipartisan success of the First Step Act and work together to craft new policies to reduce crime in America.

Six years ago, the First Step Act was signed into law by President Donald Trump, during his first term in office, while my lead Republican sponsor, Senator Chuck Grassley, was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. With Donald Trump returning to the White House and Senator Grassley returning as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we have the opportunity to build on the success of the First Step Act.

Six years ago, we wrote the blueprint for reimagining rehabilitation and protecting public safety. We know that it works.

We must remember that passing this law was just the first step in a long journey toward rethinking rehab and reversing failed reaches. Today, as I reflect on what we achieved by correcting our past wrongs and investing in the power of second chances, I also recognize that more must be done to make our justice system fair and to keep America safe.

We should learn from the experiences of individuals who have been incarcerated under misguided policies and are now seeking to reform the criminal justice system for the future.

As we celebrate this anniversary, I will continue to work with my colleagues to reform outdated sentencing laws and improve conditions of confinement and rehabilitation within our Federal system.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am saddened by the comment from Sherrod that this is his farewell speech.

As I said to several of my colleagues, we lose so many good ones here, and after we have lost them to retirement and to election results, the Senate really is an empty place, and it will be in that corner. For as long as I have been honored to serve here, that place has been occupied by Sherrod.

What makes such a difference in this man? Why is he viewed so differently? Why have so many showed up to hear his farewell speech? Well, what I am about to say you can say about him and about Connie, his wife.

There was a man named Jack Valenti, who used to be an adviser to the Presidents, and he gave President Lyndon Johnson a piece of advice. He said: Every good speech should include six words. Let me tell you a story.

Time and again, Sherrod Brown told us a story. It was a story from a picket

line. It was a story from a clothes factory. It was a story that you picked from your home State of Ohio and as you traveled around this country. And those stories, much like the stories that Connie has told over and over again in her celebrated writing, really illustrate the values of this country. You can give a sterile speech about political science all you wish, but if you tell a story that touches the heart of the listener, it can make a difference in them as it has made in you. Time and again, Sherrod has told those stories. That canary in a cage is a classic example. It tells you that he not only saw injustice but he spoke out against it, and he has dedicated his life to stopping it. And that inspires all of us--to listen to these stories and to realize they are the true story of America.

Now, this troubadour--this speaker, this man who has inspired us so often--is stepping into a different place in life.

All I can ask is one favor: Tell stories. You have so many that you have lived and so many things that need to be shared. I know that you, like your wife, are a writer--you wrote a great book about the desk at which you are sitting--and I know that you know what history means. But there is another job for you. I am not sure what it is, but I hope it will tap into your talent and your values.

I remember that day. You said it many times. It was the greatest day in your service in the Senate. It involved the child tax credit, as Bob Casey has talked to us about, and it also, I am sure, involved the idea of finally giving these retirees a fighting chance and a wage with which to sustain their families. Your fingerprints were all over that, Sherrod. It is the kind of issue that you run for office for and fight for--and make a difference in the history of this country.

So remember those words as you go forward. Your stories have inspired us. Keep telling those stories.

And, Connie, I know you will. I will look for your byline.

I wish you the best.

Madam President, I have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, the next time you are checking out at your local grocery or convenience store, take a look around. There is a good chance you will see a kiosk marked with the letter B with two vertical lines running through it. It looks like the form of a dollar sign. It is the symbol for Bitcoin. And what you are looking at is a Bitcoin ATM.

Take a closer look. Is there somebody using the machine? Are they on their phone while they are using the machine? Do they seem stressed? If so, they might just be one of the growing number of victims of Bitcoin ATM fraud.

These scams, which frequently target elderly Americans, start with a phone call. A criminal calls his target and claims he is from their bank, the IRS, or some Federal Agency. He tells his victim that their bank account has been hacked or that they are late paying their taxes and explains that they need to go to their bank immediately and take out money--sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars.

He directs his victim to a local business that hosts a Bitcoin ATM. He might even order them an Uber driver to pick them up. From there, he walks them through, step by step, how to deposit their money into the machine; how to use it to buy Bitcoin; and how to transfer the Bitcoin to a digital wallet controlled by the criminal himself.

In a matter of minutes, the money is gone, lost to the anonymity and irreversibility inherent to cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

Bitcoin ATM scams like these have exploded in recent years. According to the data released by the Federal Trade Commission, the amount consumers report losing in this form of fraud increased nearly tenfold between 2020 and 2023, from $12 million to $114 million. In the first half of this year alone, victims lost a staggering $65 million.

A disproportionate number of these victims were elderly Americans. In 2023, the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center received nearly 2,700 Bitcoin fraud complaints from individuals aged 60 and older--more than all other age groups combined.

Earlier this summer, the Illinois Times reported that a small business owner in my hometown of Springfield, IL, stepped in after he witnessed a Bitcoin ATM in his store repeatedly being used by elderly individuals to deposit large sums of money at the urging of fraudsters. He explained to the Illinois Times:

One hundred percent of the time that we saw somebody at the

machine they were being scammed. So I was like, this machine

has to go. I'm not going to be a part of that.

He wisely removed the Bitcoin ATM from the store.

In Texas, a good Samaritan called 9-1-1 after she, in her words, ``noticed an elderly lady feeding thousands of dollars into the cryptocurrency machine'' at the urging of a criminal. She tried to stop the victim from feeding more and more of her money into the machine but was unsuccessful. Only when the responding officer arrived and intervened did the victim finally understand that she had been scammed.

Scenarios like these are playing out all across America. While we should applaud bystanders who step in and stop--or at least limit--the damage caused by these criminals, relying on good Samaritans is not a solution to this growing problem.

That is why I led six of my colleagues in sending letters to the 10 largest Bitcoin ATM operators this last September. We wanted to understand what they were doing, if anything, to prevent fraudulent use of their machines. The responses we received were not reassuring.

While some safeguards, such as warning screens and ID checks, were employed by all responding companies, other commonsense measures, like analyzing transactions and digital wallets to identify and stop fraud, were not.

Other best practices, such as setting maximum transaction sizes, were left to the vagaries of State law, leaving too many Americans at risk in too many States.

That simply isn't good enough. A company should meet certain specific antifraud measures before dropping one of their machines into our communities. That is why I am going to introduce legislation in the next few weeks that establishes a Federal antifraud baseline for Bitcoin ATMs.

And as I start to develop this bill, there are a few things that strike me

as absolutely necessary. First, Bitcoin ATMs should have daily transaction limits, particularly for new customers. As these machines are increasingly used to perpetrate fraud, we should limit potential losses.

Second, any transactions initiated by a new customer should be held for some reasonable period of time before it is processed. This will allow new customers to cancel their transactions--particularly if they learn that they have been victims of fraud.

Minnesota and Connecticut recently passed legislation requiring Bitcoin ATM operators to wait 72 hours before processing a new customer's transaction. This seems like a good place to start.

Third, Bitcoin ATM operators should be required to use analytics to screen for fraudulent or otherwise illicit transactions. Many Bitcoin ATM operators already employ this technology; there is no reason it shouldn't be used across the board.

Fourth, Bitcoin ATMs should be required to provide transaction receipts that include transaction hashes. This will allow law enforcement to more easily trace the transaction, collect evidence of the crime, and maybe even recover the stolen funds.

These are just a few pillars that this legislation will include.

I plan to work with stakeholders to make this the best bill possible. That includes State attorneys general and organizations like AARP, who have been real leaders on this issue.

It also includes Bitcoin ATM operators. In their responses to my letters, many of these companies offered to work with Congress to craft appropriate regulations for the industry. I hope they will come to the table in good faith.

I am not going to stand idly by while thousands of Americans-- particularly elderly Americans--are ripped off in Bitcoin ATM scams. My bill will address this problem before it spirals out of control.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) is necessarily absent.