{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-03-04-pt1-PgS1477-2", "2025-03-04", 119, 1, null, null, "PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RELATING TO \"GROSS PROCEEDS REPORTING BY BROKERS THAT...", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S1477", "S1488", "[{\"name\": \"Jeanne Shaheen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tim Scott\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ron Wyden\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard Blumenthal\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jerry Moran\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sheldon Whitehouse\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gary C. Peters\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mark Kelly\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Marsha Blackburn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Christopher Murphy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Kennedy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Elizabeth Warren\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Pete Ricketts\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ted Cruz\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Barrasso\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard J. Durbin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"3\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"3\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SRES\", \"number\": \"21\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SRES\", \"number\": \"21\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SRES\", \"number\": \"105\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SRES\", \"number\": \"105\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"151\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"151\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. S1477", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 41 (Tuesday, March 4, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 4, 2025)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S1477-S1488]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,\n   UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE\n    SERVICE RELATING TO ``GROSS PROCEEDS REPORTING BY BROKERS THAT\n    REGULARLY PROVIDE SERVICES EFFECTUATING DIGITAL ASSET SALES''--\n                               Continued\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.\n\n                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 151\n\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today because I am\nconcerned about President Trump's actions to, I believe, start a trade\nwar with our top two trading partners, Canada and Mexico.\n  All goods coming from Canada and Mexico, as of midnight last night--I\nguess midnight today--face a 25-percent tax; that is, all except\nCanadian energy, which is taxed at 10 percent. Trump's tariffs will\nmake everything from gas to heating, to groceries, to lumber and more,\nmore expensive for everyday Americans.\n  I think it bears repeating that tariffs are paid by consumers. They\nare paid by Americans, not by other countries. And what the President\nis doing amounts to a new tax for Americans. For example, heating oil\nand propane that keeps hundreds of thousands of Granite Staters warm in\nthe winter is going to cost more. We are going to add about $150 to\n$250 to the cost of heating homes in New Hampshire.\n  And gas prices are going to go up. In New Hampshire, half of the fuel\nin our cars and trucks comes from Canada, and U.S. refineries across\nthe Midwest use Canadian oil.\n  The United States imports 80 percent of its potash fertilizer from\nCanada, and this tariff makes farming and food more expensive.\n  It is unclear how the American auto industry is going to continue to\noperate. Ford's CEO said these tariffs will ``blow a hole in the U.S.\nindustry that we have never seen,'' with up to $12,000 added to the\ncost of a car.\n  And this will make lumber and electrical equipment that we need to\nbuild housing--at a time when housing is already in short supply--it\nwill make them more expensive and harder to find.\n  Those are just a few examples.\n  There are countless other imports that American businesses and\nfamilies rely on that are going to be hit hard, and these tariffs do\nnothing to bring down those costs. They do just the opposite.\n  These tariffs could add $1,200 to an average household's yearly cost,\nand we won't have to wait very long for the impact to be felt. It is\nalready being felt on Wall Street and the stock market. Target's CEO\nsaid this morning that the consumer ``will likely see price increases\nover the next couple of days.'' And for small businesses, these tariff\ntaxes will be felt by small businesses in all of our States.\n  I was here, a month ago today, sharing stories from businessowners in\nNew Hampshire who weren't sure how they were going to keep operating if\nspecialized machinery that they can only get from Canada suddenly costs\n25 percent more. Since that time, I have heard from even more people in\nNew Hampshire, more small businesses.\n  Last week, I heard from a small company in Windham, NH, that makes\nallergen-free cookies, and they can only get certain ingredients for\nthose cookies from Canada. The CEO built her business, which now\nemploys 30 people, and now she can't be sure if they are even going to\nbe able to keep going, let alone keep growing.\n  When I spoke with business representatives across New Hampshire last\nmonth, the theme they kept coming back to was ``uncertainty.'' As a\nformer small businessowner, I know that uncertainty is the most\ndestabilizing aspect of running and growing a business. Yet that is\nwhat this administration keeps creating.\n  Yesterday, we learned that new orders from manufacturers dropped in\nFebruary for the first time in 22 years. For the first time in 22\nyears, new orders from manufacturers dropped because companies can't\nwork with this level of uncertainty.\n  Last Wednesday, the President was talking about Canadian tariffs\ngoing into effect April 2. The very next morning, he announced 25\npercent tariffs would go into effect today. The whiplash is hard to\nimagine.\n  I spoke, last month, about a bus company, C&J Bus Lines, in New\nHampshire that was worried about these tariffs and what it would mean\nfor the bottom line. Well, the CEO moved up his delivery date to get\nthree buses in late March before these taxes were set to go into\neffect, but his costs just went up more than $450,000.\n  Businesses plan months, quarters, or years in advance. They need to\nplace orders and plot out their growth in order to succeed. How can\nthey plan when they can't even know whether their costs are going to go\nup 25 percent overnight? How can a developer know if they can start\nbuilding the housing that New Hampshire desperately needs if their\nlumber costs 25 percent more overnight? And how can a family already\nstruggling with high costs continue to pay the rent or put food on the\ntable if their household costs are going to go up $1,200 this year?\n  I want families and businesses to know that the whims of this\nPresident are not going to cause them to break the bank on everyday\nitems they need to get by. That is why I introduced the Protecting\nAmericans from Tax Hikes on Imported Goods Act. It is a simple change,\nreally. It says that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,\nor IEEPA, can no longer be used to place taxes on imports.\n  If the President needs to block some dangerous product, he still can.\nBut if there is a real threat, we would want to stop it, not just add a\ntariff tax. That is what my bill does. It would stop these tariffs on\ngoods and energy coming from Canada and Mexico, and it would give\nbusinesses and families more certainty to plan for the future and to\nkeep their hard-earned dollars in their pockets.\n  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on\nBanking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further\nconsideration of S. 151 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate\nconsideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and\npassed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid\nupon the table.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  The Senator from South Carolina.\n  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, reserving the right to\nobject, IEEPA is a powerful tool that provides the President with a\nrange of authorities to protect our national security. With all the\nchallenges facing our Nation, now is not the time to be limiting\nPresidential power, and that is exactly what Senator Shaheen's bill\nwould do.\n  Instead, we must use every tool available to combat these threats,\nand we are already seeing results. As an example, Colombia accepted\nmigrant return flights. We have seen Mexico and Canada take initial\ncredible steps to combat fentanyl and illegal immigration. Now is not\nthe time to tie the hands of President Trump.\n\n  Thank you, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the\nSenate through regular order to ensure that we take every step to\nprotect our national security.\n  Therefore, I object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.\n  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I know that my colleague from Oregon\nwants to speak to this issue, but I just want to respond in a couple of\nways.\n  I know my colleague from South Carolina cares about the issues that I\nam going to address, but he mentioned fentanyl, and that is what the\nPresident has used to justify the tariffs. He\n\n[[Page S1478]]\n\nsays this is a way to stop the flow of fentanyl into our country, but\nhe has forgotten a few inconvenient facts.\n  First, it is that, in 2024, CBP, or Customs and Border Protection,\nseized about 43 pounds of fentanyl along our northern border--about 1\npercent of the fentanyl coming into this country. Now, it has long been\nknown that fentanyl is not coming from Canada, and that hard drugs and\nfirearms flow north from the United States into Canada.\n  In fact, on February 25, the Canada Border Services Agency announced\nthe seizure of 410 pounds of methamphetamine and 42 pounds of cocaine\nfrom two commercial trucks seeking entry into Canada at the Coutts port\nof entry. Seizures like this are not uncommon. Wouldn't it make more\nsense if we agreed to work together with our Canadian allies instead of\nputting a tariff on them?\n  The second fact that bears mentioning is that the vast majority of\nthe fentanyl crossing the southwest border is transported by Americans,\nhidden in their cars and trucks. That is why I have supported--like\nmost of my colleagues in this body have supported--more money for\ntechnology and personnel to better find these drugs before they enter\nthe United States. That is why I supported the border bill last year\nthat this President stopped because he wanted a political issue.\n  On China, we can debate another time whether this is actually the\nright long-term strategy with China. But more important than that, my\nbill does not prevent tariffs against countries like China that have\nunfair trade practices. Both President Trump, in his first term, and\nPresident Biden have already placed tariffs on numerous imports from\nChina to respond to its unfair trade practices, exactly what section\n301 of the Trade Act is for. That tool remains available.\n  My bill only addresses the ability of the President to tax imports on\na whim. And I want to note that, thanks to this President, we now have\nhigher taxes on imports from Canada than from China. I don't know how\nthat makes sense--that we are taxing our allies more than we are taxing\nour adversaries.\n  So I would say: Is this really about China, or is a more important\nmotivation here to raise costs on American families to pay for tax cuts\nfor the wealthy?\n  As the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I take very\nseriously our ability to use sanctions or other tools in foreign\npolicy. This bill does nothing to limit the use of sanctions under\nIEEPA, nor does it prevent an embargo or fully blocking dangerous\nimports.\n  But I don't think a tax is the right solution for those issues. In\nfact, this is breaking the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that President\nTrump negotiated just 6 years ago. And if we are going to break the\nvery deal we have negotiated--I think, one of the most important\nachievements of the first Trump administration--why would people want\nto work with us in the future? Why would they want to work with a Trump\nadministration? How does being an unreliable partner to our closest\nallies help our national security?\n  I think it is important to be clear on this: Donald Trump's trade war\ndoesn't create any manufacturing jobs tomorrow in the United States. In\nfact, it is far more likely to cost us tens or hundreds of thousands of\njobs. Half of the goods that America imports are intermediate\ncomponents, that means parts that our companies manufacture into\nfinished goods. Every one of those items coming from Canada or Mexico\njust got 25 percent more expensive.\n  And we have already heard from automakers. They are not sure how much\nthis is going to add to the bottom line of cars. I think that is a lot\nof risk for tariffs that President Trump can't justify for any other\nreason, other than because he wants to get funding to support a tax cut\nfor the wealthiest Americans.\n  Yet the President is talking about wanting to cut deals with Russia\nfor economic development. I don't see the logic in going half way\naround the world to deal with a dictator--a murderous dictator, by the\nway--like Vladimir Putin. At the same time, we are damaging\nrelationships and cutting off trade with our closest allies right here\nin North America.\n  I am happy to listen to somebody's explanation here, but I don't\nthink it makes sense, and it seems entirely contrary to American values\nto me. So I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will\nsee the folly in what the President is doing, will recognize the impact\non the economy and American families because of these increased costs,\nand agree that these tariffs should be rolled back.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, my colleague from New Hampshire is being\nway too logical for some of what passes as trade debate here. And it is\nmy hope that her excellent proposal will be back on this Senate floor\nsometime soon for unanimous consent to pass a very important bill\nprotecting Americans from tax hikes on imported goods.\n  This is, as she has stated, a straightforward proposition. All it\ndoes is clarify that the President's emergency powers can't be used to\nput tariffs on the things Americans buy from other countries.\n  Now, Donald Trump calls himself a ``tariff man''--his quote, not\nmine. It is the only answer he seems to have to any problem under the\nsun. Instead of taking time to think through actual solutions, he is\nwilling to use any authority he can find to slap tariffs on our trading\npartners.\n  Just today, he announced he was slapping 25 percent tariffs on Canada\nand Mexico, which are two of our three largest trading partners and\nclosest allies.\n  That alone is going to raise costs for Americans on gas, on cars, on\nfruits and vegetables, and many other products. It is also going to\ncost America jobs because Canada and Mexico have announced plans to\nretaliate against our exports.\n  That is the opposite of what Donald Trump pledged to the American\npeople.\n  It is disturbing that Donald Trump is going rogue and using emergency\npowers to pursue his tariffs. The American people voted for lower--not\nhigher--prices. Donald Trump campaigned on the promise that he would\nlower costs on day one of his Presidency. But just a month in, all\nTrump has managed to do is gut the agencies in charge of protecting\nconsumers and going after predatory corporations, and he's landed us in\ntrade wars that are going to drive up the cost of goods people use\nevery day.\n  Whether it is to punish a country that he doesn't like or to settle\nscores with foreign leaders, the only answer Donald Trump has ever had\nis tariffs. And as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance\nCommittee, I have heard him play that card again and again, no matter\nhow many times we have said: Look, tariffs should be one of the tools\nin the trade toolbox, but it shouldn't be the universal answer to\neverything.\n  Trump's approach is going to drive up prices and costs for American\nfamilies, businesses, and farmers in the process.\n  He does it, in my view, because he and his billionaire friends aren't\ngoing to feel the impacts, and they don't care about the millions of\nAmericans who will.\n  These higher costs essentially add up to a Trump Tax on everything\nfrom food to clothes and cars. And to those who voted for Donald Trump\nbecause they wanted lower prices and a fairer economy--it sure seems to\nme that these policies are a betrayal. The Shaheen bill that we are\ntrying to pass today would rein in some of Donald Trump's worst\nimpulses and clarify that the laws on the books were never meant to be\na blank check for the President to abuse tariffs by using them as a\npunishment against any country that hurts his feelings.\n  A number of our Republican colleagues have supported the Shaheen\nproposal in the past because putting a check on the President's power\nto land us in trade wars should not be, as my colleague has said,\npartisan or controversial. It is Shaheen common sense. I want to thank\nher for an excellent bill, and for her leadership that I have watched\nfrom my vantage point on the Finance Committee.\n  And when we can get this bill back on the floor for unanimous\nconsent, I hope it will be met with a resounding bipartisan showing of\nsupport, and I look forward to working with her until that day comes to\nbe.\n\n[[Page S1479]]\n\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Connecticut.\n\n                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 105\n\n  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, tragically and totally unnecessarily,\nwhat we are seeing in real time is an assault on the veterans of\nAmerica. It is an assault that is part of a campaign by Elon Musk, who\nhas been empowered by President Trump supposedly to eliminate waste in\nour Federal Government.\n  Instead of eliminating waste, Elon Musk is laying waste to the\nDepartment of Veterans Affairs, and it is unfolding in real time, with\nreal-life impacts on our veterans. Not only is he firing veterans at\nthe VA--many of the 2,400 already terminated are veterans, one-third of\nthem--but across Agencies in the U.S. Government, where 30,000 members\nof the Federal workforce have been indiscriminately terminated. Thirty\npercent of them are veterans as well.\n  Almost 50 percent of everybody in the Department of Defense who has\nbeen fired are veterans, and they may be probationary employees who\nhave been promoted to positions where they are in probationary status\nbecause they have done such a great job. They are being fired.\n  Younger members of the Federal workforce--there for up to 2 years,\nthe future of our civil service--they are firing, and so many of them\nare veterans who have worn the uniform, served and sacrificed, and want\nto continue to benefit the country with the skills and dedication they\nhave demonstrated as members of our U.S. Armed Forces.\n  Public service has long been a preferred path for military-affiliated\npopulations. Whether it is in our local police force or as emergency\nmedical personnel, joining the Federal workforce has enabled them to\ncontinue serving our country while it offers competitive wages,\nbenefits, and much needed stability for them as veterans and tremendous\nbenefits for taxpayers.\n  Now what Elon Musk is doing--relying on his tech bros and his\nalgorithms and his AI formulas--is to cut across the board, leaving\nthose veterans as disposable trash or roadkill in his campaign to\neliminate waste.\n  Well, let me tell you, Elon Musk, if you were serious about\neliminating waste, you wouldn't have fired the inspectors general of\nthese Agencies, who are the watchdogs. They have records of eliminating\nwaste, fraud, and abuse.\n  Exhibit A is Michael Missal, the inspector general of the VA, hired\nand appointed first by President Obama. He served under President Trump\nfor 4 years and then under President Biden. He has ruffled feathers of\nRepublican and Democrat administrations because he has uncovered waste\nand fraud in a very bipartisan way, and he regards his job as\nbipartisan. He would be the one to eliminate waste, not with a meat-ax\nbut with a scalpel.\n  I wish my colleagues had been in the hearing today, the joint hearing\nof the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees, to hear Commander\nAl Lipphardt of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW--a really heroic\nVietnam veteran, injured there, with shrapnel in his arm. As he told\nus, the surgeon removed the shrapnel piece by piece; he didn't cut off\nhis arm. That is the approach that we need, as he said, in eliminating\nwaste--not cutting off arms or legs but removing the waste carefully,\ndeliberately, cautiously.\n  Among the illegally terminated--and I should stress ``illegally\nterminated''--are 2,400 VA employees, many of them veterans themselves,\nmembers of the Guard or Reserves now, caregivers, military spouses. In\nthe DOD, many of them--45 percent--are former veterans. The overall\nimpact will be disastrous on the 640,000 veterans who are public\nservants.\n  Musk and Trump have already upended the lives of so many thousands of\nveterans who were casually discarded, illegally fired without notice or\njustification--all for cheap headlines. The impacts in real life are\nundeniable. Stories from newspapers, from broadcast media, from all\nkinds of outlets, tell the story of those real-life impacts.\n  I know my colleagues are hearing from their constituents about the\nmental health services that are delayed, about the surgeries that can't\nbe provided, and about the Veterans Crisis Line, serving veterans who\nmay be taking their own lives--all reduced. These real-life impacts are\nundeniable. We are talking about the people who make sure that veterans\nhave transportation to those appointments, who assist with benefits\nclaims, who ensure that the VA hospitals are maintained and that they\nare safe, who clean operating rooms and sterilize instruments in\nbetween procedures. It may not be the surgeon who is fired, but the\nsurgeon who is walking into the operating room needs a staff and a team\nto assist him. He needs the housekeeping staff to make sure that it is\nclean. These people have dedicated their careers to serving veterans\nand their Nation, and all have been indiscriminately and illegally\nterminated.\n  These short headlines tell a story, and so does this visual from\nSpringfield, MA:\n\n       Due to abrupt and unplanned staff shortages, we are not\n     able to greet you at this time. If you have a scheduled\n     appointment, your counselor will be out to get you at the\n     time of your appointment. If you are here for any other\n     reason, please call and leave a message, and a staff member\n     will return your call.\n       We apologize--\n\n  ``We apologize''--\n\n       for any inconvenience and impact on your care.\n\n  Donald Trump and Elon Musk owe veterans an apology. Right now, Elon\nMusk is giving veterans the middle finger. Veterans won't stand for it.\n  So, Mr. President, I am introducing a resolution today and asking\nthat we approve it to uphold the contract, to uphold the promise, to\nuphold the commitment we made to our veterans when they raised their\nright hands and promised to serve and sacrifice even at the risk of\ndying.\n  I am joined by Senators Hirono, Slotkin, Lujan, Murray, Durbin,\nWhitehouse, Warnock, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Kaine, Rosen, Cortez Masto,\nAlsobrooks, Kelly, Warren, Hassan, Schiff, Baldwin, Duckworth, Gallego,\nPeters, Van Hollen, Sanders, Booker, Wyden, Merkley, Warner, Smith,\nPadilla, Heinrich, Schatz, and Hickenlooper in this effort. I wish--I\nreally wish--it were bipartisan because veterans' issues have been\nbipartisan. I have worked with veterans, including the chairman, whom I\nrespect, Senator Moran, on these issues.\n  This resolution acknowledges that veterans, who make up less than 7\npercent of Americans but approximately 30 percent of public service,\nhave been really disrespected and disserved in just these weeks, with\nsuch destructive and repugnant effects on them, on the veterans they\nserve, and on American values. Our Nation and they deserve better.\n  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration\nof S. Res. 105, which is at the desk; further, that the resolution be\nagreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to\nreconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no\nintervening action or debate.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?\n  The Senator from Kansas.\n  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in my\nconversations with Kansans, I frequently point to the Senate Committee\non Veterans' Affairs as proof that we can still work together, that\nunity is attainable, and that we are able to set aside our partisan\ndifferences and frustrations to find a way to work together to put our\nNation's veterans first because they did that for us when they put on\nthe uniform and took a vow to defend and protect our country.\n  The Senate has to work together with the administration, with the\nSecretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans service\norganizations, and the broad veteran community across the country. This\nresolution divides the Congress and the administration and makes it\nmore difficult for us to find consensus. We should work together. We\nshould work together to determine what is the right kind of workforce\nat the VA--a workforce that enables the Department to better care for\nveterans.\n\n  Approving this resolution drives a wedge between this body--this\nSenate, this Congress--and the executive branch, and I don't see how\nthat helps veterans.\n  Additionally, this resolution was designed to lock in at the VA the\nstatus quo as of January 19. I don't know if any of my colleagues\nbelieve the VA\n\n[[Page S1480]]\n\nwas doing everything just right prior to this administration.\n  I commit today to all my colleagues to work with them to make certain\nthe VA retains an effective workforce that can deliver our promises to\nveterans, but we will only achieve that by working together and working\nwith the Department of Veterans Affairs to find the desirable outcomes.\nWe need more information, and we need to be working together to achieve\nthat. Therefore, I object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.\n  The Senator from Connecticut.\n  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, first, let me say I am hopeful that we\ncan work together--if the chairman of the VA Committee is willing to do\nit--to try to arrive at language that calls for the rehiring of these\nveterans, rescinding the layoffs.\n  I must say that we are joined today by a number of guests of my\ncolleagues as well as myself, veterans who have been terminated. They\nare with us today. They are going to be with us tonight at the address\noffered by President Trump.\n  I am more than happy to work on this resolution if there is a way to\nmake it bipartisan, but the basic principle that we owe our veterans\nthat contract and commitment and that we need to bring them back so\nthat these kinds of consequences can be avoided I think is fundamental\nto the effort today.\n  We know that more than 50 patient appointments were canceled at a VA\nfacility just this past week because they can't hire staff needed to\ncare for those veterans.\n  We know that in the first round of terminations, Secretary Collins\nterminated nine Veterans Crisis Line employees. Then he hired some\nback, and then he fired more.\n  We know that a pregnant spouse of a disabled veteran who was hired\nunder the military spouse appointing authority was terminated.\n  We know that a 25-year Marine Corps veteran with a 100-percent\nservice-connected disability rating and 15 years of service was\nterminated.\n  We know that a VA researcher working on treatments for substance use\ndisorders among veterans was terminated.\n  We know that the cyber security lead for the VA website--the digital\nhub that connects veterans with their benefits and holds sensitive,\npersonal data--was terminated.\n  These kinds of impacts--and I have mentioned just a tiny fraction of\nall of them--are ongoing. They are real. They are urgent.\n  I am more than happy to work on the language of this resolution, but\nthe goal is indisputable and unavoidable.\n  I am going to turn now to some of my colleagues who have joined me\ntoday. I thank them for doing so.\n  First, Senator Whitehouse, if I may yield to him.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Blumenthal\nfor this effort. It really matters. Even if it fails, it matters to our\nveterans to know that we tried, to know that we did not leave them out\nthere at the mercy of Elon Musk and his little muskrats that have been\nrunning around through all of our government Agencies breaking\nAgencies, violating court orders, prowling through your data--\nAmericans, prowling through your data--and, of course, firing veterans.\n  No President has fired more veterans than Donald Trump just in his\nfirst few weeks in office, and what it is doing to the VA and to\nservices for veterans is deeply wrong and deeply unfortunate.\n  In Rhode Island, we have our Providence VA health center, which is a\nfirst-class operation. Our veterans love it. It is well run. It has all\nsorts of new services and facilities that Senator Reed and I have\nworked to make sure got to the hospital. Also, it has nearly 2,500\nemployees. It is a big operation.\n  We also have the Providence VA benefits office, which is such a good\nbenefits office that if a program is being rolled out and not working\nsomeplace, they call in the Providence benefits office to try to get it\nworking. If they are about to roll out a new program and they want to\nbeta test it, they go to the Providence benefits office because they\nare good at what they do. I can't think of anything that makes them\nmore proud than the customers they serve. They love the folks they work\nfor.\n  So to go through this group and slash and burn without the least\nlogic or care from, like, these little tech bro muskrat types who have\nnever served, have no idea what they are doing, but are just taking\ndelight in moving fast and breaking things, to use the tech bro talk--\nwell, that is fine if you are a tech bro and you are playing around\nwith equipment, but when you are dealing with our veterans and you are\ndealing with people's lives, running around fast, not knowing what you\nare doing, and breaking stuff sounds more like Thing One and Thing Two\nfrom ``The Cat in the Hat.'' This is not the responsible way veterans\nshould be treated.\n  I will mention just two while I am here.\n  There is a Rhode Islander who works for our Veterans Crisis Line. It\nis the hotline that veterans can call in to when they are having an\nacute crisis of some kind, perhaps even feeling suicidal. This is not\neasy work. When that phone goes, you have to be on, and you have to be\nexpert. You have to understand how to support the people who are\ncalling in. You have to understand how to get them to the services they\nneed. It is a life-and-death matter.\n  This individual was fired and then rehired a few days later--or at\nleast told they were reinstated just a few days later. But with all the\nscrambling going on at the VA, the VA has not reissued work\ncredentials, and they still do not have a return-to-work date for the\nimproper firing that never should have happened and then was\nrescinded but now doesn't have a proper end to the termination. It is\nadministrative malpractice, it is stupid, and it is wrong.\n\n  We have another Rhode Islander who worked at the local vet center who\nwas also abruptly and unjustifiably terminated.\n  As I said, it really means a lot to these people to be working for\nveterans. They really put their hearts into it, and they really want to\ndo a very good job. They actually get rated on whether or not they are,\nin fact, doing a good job.\n  This individual received outstanding performance ratings. It wasn't\njust that they threw their heart and soul into their work, their peers\nreviewed them and their supervisors reviewed them and said that they\nwere outstanding performers at their work.\n  So a letter comes to them saying that they were terminated due to\npoor performance. Among other things, that was a lie because they\nweren't poor performers. They were excellent performers.\n  When you lie to people who are working for veterans just so you can\nfire them, that is a pretty loathsome way to go about serving veterans,\nand it is certainly a loathsome way to treat the people who dedicate\ntheir lives to taking care of veterans.\n  If you want to go find the people who have poor performance and fire\nthem, go find the people who have poor performance and fire them, but\ndon't just randomly accuse high performers of poor performance, lie to\nthem about their performance, and fire them. It is a really offensive\nstate of affairs.\n  It means now that vet center calls are being routed out to Colorado\nin a different time zone. Rhode Island--a little bit like Connecticut--\nis a small State. Connecticut is a little bigger. We have our own\ncharacter, we have our own nature, and we have our own, often, way of\nspeaking. And it matters, when you pick up the phone to call the vet\ncenter, that you are not talking to somebody several time zones away in\nColorado, particularly not because the phone isn't being answered\nbecause a high-performing worker was lied to about their performance\nand wrongly fired. There is really no excuse for that.\n  I want to say to the folks at the Providence benefits office: Thank\nyou. God bless you. We admire and respect what you do. We recognize\nthat the entire VA organization has treated you as particularly expert\nand able, and the work you do to make sure our vets get the benefits\nthey are due is first class. Thank you for what you do. We are\ngrateful. And I apologize that this President and this whatever he is\nand his little muskrats are doing this kind\n\n[[Page S1481]]\n\nof damage to the institution you so proudly serve.\n  To the folks at the Providence VA hospital: God bless you, and thank\nyou. You do great work.\n  I deal with veterans all the time. Our veterans love our hospital.\nThey are proud of our hospital. They think it is well run. They think\nthey are well treated. The services are good. You can even get rides\nthere. There is good parking. I mean, this hospital runs the way you\nwould want a veterans hospital to run.\n  So keep those little muskrats out of Rhode Island. Don't damage the\nservices to our veterans.\n  I hope that, as the chairman said, we can come together and fix this,\nbut it is hard to hear about how we should come together when nobody\ncame together from ``Muskland,'' and those little muskrats didn't check\nin with anybody before they went in to break stuff at these Agencies.\nIt is a little late for togetherness when there has been none in terms\nof defending the work that these wonderful people do.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.\n  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are going to be joined by others of\nmy colleagues, but I want to follow Senator Whitehouse's very eloquent\nremarks by just making a couple of quick points.\n  You know, tonight, the President is going to speak to Members of both\nthe House and the Senate, and he is going to make a lot of claims, many\nof them untethered in any way to the facts. But if he does nothing\nelse, what I would like to see him do is show some respect for our\nveterans. He has called them suckers and losers. They have been called\nswamp creatures or deep-staters by members of this administration. Part\nof the mindset here that is responsible for these firings is that\ndisrespect for our veterans.\n  Two of my sons are veterans--one, a Marine Corps first lieutenant who\nserved in Afghanistan; another, a Navy SEAL. They value the VA.\n  Americans see in their real lives how the VA helps our veterans.\n  When the President speaks tonight, I want him to look at the guests\nwhom we have brought--not only my guest, Michael Missal, the former\ninspector general of the VA, but also a U.S. Air Force veteran with\nmore than 30 years of military service who retired from a lifetime of\ndedicated service to his country in November and immediately\nrededicated himself to serving his fellow veterans at the Department of\nVeterans Affairs. He started work on January 13. He was illegally\nterminated barely 1 month later. He is the soul breadwinner of his\nfamily. And Tony Ruiz, a disabled Army veteran--until he was illegally\nterminated, he worked at the VA Benefits Administration to assist\nveterans with their benefits claim. He was cut just 10 days before his\nprobationary period ended. He was serving in his dream job.\n\n  These veterans and other courageous former members of our Armed\nForces are going to be with us tonight, and they will be speaking out.\nThey will be sharing their stories. They are not faceless bureaucrats.\nThey are not suckers. They are not losers. They are hard-working public\nservants who have willingly sacrificed everything for this country,\nhave been willing to give even their lives, and now have rededicated\nthemselves to continue their service now that their military time is\ncomplete.\n  I want to yield to my colleague from Michigan, Senator Peters, who\nhimself is a veteran and a great colleague and friend of ours.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.\n  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the\nmass termination of veterans that is taking place all across our\nFederal Government.\n  I was proud to serve more than a decade in the U.S. Navy Reserve,\nwhere I rose to the rank of lieutenant commander. During this time, I\nhad the absolute privilege to work with some of the most patriotic,\nhard-working, and inspiring individuals that I have ever met. I know\nfirsthand that veterans are a vital source of talent to our workforce.\n  So let's just think for a moment. Let's just think about the\nqualities that make a valuable employee: leadership, work ethic,\nproblem-solving abilities, and of course, integrity. These are not just\nabstract qualities; they are tangible assets that veterans bring to our\nbusinesses, our communities, and to our government. They are qualities\nthat drive innovation. They boost productivity and foster a culture of\nexcellence. Employing our Nation's veterans when they transition to\ncivilian life is not just a responsibility; it is a smart business\ndecision. That is why the Federal Government has long taken advantage\nof this absolutely remarkable talent pool.\n  Veterans now make up roughly 30 percent of our Federal workforce--or\nmore than 640,000 veterans in the civil service--and I rise today to\nexpress my absolute outrage over the indiscriminate firings of nearly\n6,000 of these veterans--from the VA to the Defense Department to the\nDepartment of the Treasury.\n  At the VA, where veterans' input is particularly critical to shaping\npolicies that support our Nation's robust veteran population, Elon Musk\nand DOGE have fired more than 600 veteran employees. They are part of\nmore than 2,400 individuals fired all across the VA.\n  I have heard from numerous veterans and VA workers in Michigan who\nare absolutely devastated and confused by why this administration would\nturn their back on them like this. My staff met with a veteran who has\nworked for the VA in Michigan for nearly 30 years. Last year, they were\nmoved to a new role within the VA and promoted--promoted--to supervisor\nshortly thereafter. And no surprise because they had never received\nless than an excellent performance review over 30 years. But because\nthey were relatively new to that specific role, they were swept up in\nthe widespread firings, both within the VA and across government, of\nall probationary employees. They were one of many veterans fired\nabruptly, without cause, without reason.\n  In another case, a veteran with 8 years of Active Duty service in the\nAir Force was fired from the VA in Michigan after receiving an\n``outstanding'' performance review. His probationary period was set to\nexpire last week, just 12 days after he was let go.\n  These cuts are not based on fact. They are not based on logic. They\nare just cruel. And our country will not be better off. As a result of\nthese mass layoffs, Americans can expect longer wait times to receive\nimportant documents like passports and Social Security benefits, fewer\nfood safety inspections, and higher risks during air travel.\n  These are Americans who put their lives on the line to defend this\ncountry. They took up a job to continue to serve the people of this\ncountry. They represent the very best of our Nation, and we need them\nin our Federal workforce.\n  I am calling today on the administration to reinstate these veteran\nemployees immediately.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.\n  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, we made a sacred promise to our veterans\nthat after their service, they would get the care and support that they\nearned. That promise did not come with an expiration date. And as a\ncombat veteran myself, I take this responsibility personally on behalf\nof Arizona's more than 500,000 veterans and veterans across the\ncountry. But with these mass firings of staff at the VA, President\nTrump and Elon Musk are breaking that promise.\n  In the last month, thousands of VA employees, people who care for our\nNation's veterans, were fired with no warning, no phone call, no\nmeeting--just an email telling them that they no longer had a job, that\nthey were no longer wanted. These aren't just nameless, faceless\nbureaucrats; these are Americans who signed up to serve our country by\ntaking care of veterans. They deserve to be treated with respect. These\nare the people on the frontlines of veterans' care and services, and\nthey were fired without even a thought.\n  We can all agree that the VA can do a better job, but aimlessly\nfiring thousands of people will do nothing to help speed up veterans'\nhealthcare--nothing. It will just make accessing care more difficult.\n  Secretary Collins and the VA claim that these were ``non-mission\ncritical'' jobs. Well, that is simply not true. In\n\n[[Page S1482]]\n\nArizona, we have seen VA workers and the families who rely on the VA\nimpacted in a real way--like Brandy and David, who shared their story\nwith Arizona's Family News and are both veterans themselves who became\nloan specialists to help fellow veterans navigate financial hardships\nand avoid homelessness. Before they were fired, each of them was\nhandling 1,500 cases. Each of those cases represents one veteran who\nneeds help. How much longer will it take veterans in need to get\nanswers?\n  Another Arizona family reached out to my office, afraid to speak out\npublicly because of fear of retaliation. The husband is a doctor at the\nTucson VA. He treats patients with lung disease. But last week he got\nan email--not a meeting, no conversation--just an email telling him to\nresign. Is that who Secretary Collins calls ``non-mission critical''?\nHis wife now fears that her job could be next. They have two young\nkids, and now they are being forced to rethink everything because this\nadministration--this administration--kicked them to the curb.\n\n  Donald Trump claims to care about veterans but then turns around and\nfires the very people whose job it is to ensure that veterans get the\ncare that they need, the care that they earned from serving our Nation,\nfor keeping us safe. These are real people. These terminations, they\nare not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are real people who execute\na mission serving veterans. And these layoffs--these layoffs are going\nto mean longer wait times for appointments, fewer options for mental\nhealth care, fewer options for pain management, more delays in\nprocessing benefits.\n  Is this really where Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to save a buck?\nOff the backs of veterans who have risked everything for us?\n  This is not how the United States should treat our veterans. That is\nwhy I stand here today as a veteran myself, with Senator Blumenthal and\nour colleagues, to support this resolution.\n  Let's get the folks back to work serving our veterans. The work they\ndo is mission critical. Veterans in Arizona and across the country are\ncounting on them, and they are counting on us.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.\n  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am going to close this colloquy by,\nfirst of all, thanking my colleagues who have come today, especially\nveterans like Senator Kelly, who served for decades, and Senator Peters\nand all the veterans who have joined in this resolution--Senators\nGallego and others who have served this country--Senator Slotkin,\nSenator Peters, who was here, and others.\n  But we don't have to be veterans to appreciate what members of our\nmilitary do for our country. My own service in the U.S. Marine Corps\nReserve pales in comparison to many of theirs and many who have\nappeared before the Veterans' Committee over these past 7, 10 days,\nmany of them decrying these kinds of cuts. Again, these are real\npeople, affected in real ways, unnecessarily harmed.\n  And these headlines speak volumes about how they have been hurt:\n\n       DOGE finds zero fraud, waste, or abuse, just new ways to\n     harm veterans.\n       Veterans fired in federal layoffs say they were ``stabbed\n     in the back.''\n\n  These are just a scattering of the kinds of real-life stories that\nbring us to the floor today.\n  I plead with the President: Please make this resolution unnecessary.\nDo the right thing. But if you don't, I ask my colleagues on the other\nside of the aisle: Join us from that other side of the aisle; join us\nin decrying these cuts, the freezes, the firings, the terminations.\nThey are illegal and immoral.\n  And we will move forward. We will continue to fight because American\nvalues are at stake.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.\n\n                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 21\n\n  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, last November, the American people\nreturned President Donald Trump to the Oval Office with a mandate to\nrestore common sense in government, and in many ways, this common sense\nwas most needed on the issue of protecting women and girls.\n  After 4 years where President Biden waged a war on women's sports,\nthe message from voters was clear: no more biological men competing in\nwomen's athletics, no more stolen records and medals, and no more\ninvasions of privacy, humiliation, and harm for our Nation's incredible\nfemale athletes.\n  To be certain, President Trump has delivered on the mandate. On\nInauguration Day, the President issued an Executive order that affirms\nthe Federal Government's position that there are only two sexes, male\nand female.\n  This is a position grounded in biological reality, not gender\nideology. Last month, the President also signed an Executive order that\nbans biological males from competing in women's sports.\n  It was an honor to join President Trump at the signing ceremony along\nwith the brave young women and girls who have spoken out for fairness,\nsafety, equal opportunity, including one of those female athletes,\nTennessee's Riley Gaines.\n  The terms of the order are simple: If you allow men to compete in\nwomen's athletics, you will lose your Federal funding.\n  To no one's surprise, the order is getting results. Right after\nPresident Trump signed it, the NCAA, which oversees more than 530,000\nstudent athletes, announced that it would comply with the order.\n  For more than a decade, the Nation's largest athletic association\nallowed men to compete in women's events. It will be a top priority of\nmine to ensure that this injustice never happens again and that the\nNCAA will fully adhere to the Executive order.\n  While the vast majority of States are complying, there are some\nStates, blue States like California and Maine, that are vowing to fight\nPresident Trump over the order.\n  The message they are sending is clear: Democrats are willing to risk\nmillions in Federal funding for schools to uphold their radical, far-\nleft ideology that claims there are no differences between men and\nwomen.\n  The American people know better, and so do the more than 3 million\nfemale high school and college athletes who deserve every single\nopportunity to succeed. They work hard; they train hard; they set their\ngoals; they compete; and they work to succeed.\n  To celebrate all of these incredible accomplishments from these 3\nmillion high school and college athletes, I am asking for unanimous\nconsent for my resolution to establish October 10--the 10th month, 10th\nday--recognized by the Roman numerals XX, like the female sex\nchromosome, as American Girls in Sports Day, setting aside a day to\nrecognize the accomplishments of 3 million high school and college\nfemale athletes.\n  In addition to celebrating female athletes, this resolution calls on\nsports governing bodies across the country to protect women and girls\nin sports. There is absolutely zero reason for Senate Democrats to\noppose this resolution, and here is the reason why: We have a New York\nTimes Ipsos poll that tells the story on this. Seventy-nine percent of\nthe American people, including 67 percent of Democrats, want to make\ncertain that female sports are for girls and women. Those numbers--67\npercent of Democrats, 79 percent of all Americans--say they are with\nus.\n  They want to protect women and girls in sports. They want to make\ncertain that they have the right to compete, the right to train, the\nright to do team building, and the right to succeed and be recognized\nfor it.\n  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on\nCommerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further\nconsideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 21; further, that\nthe resolution be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and that the\nmotions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?\n  The Senator from Connecticut.\n  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I\nunderstand it, this bill--this resolution seeks to establish an\nAmerican Girls in Sports Day.\n  Obviously, that sounds like a really good idea until you read the\nresolution, and you realize that this resolution actually has virtually\nnothing to do with the history and the current reality of girls playing\nsports.\n\n[[Page S1483]]\n\n  Instead, it is just another attempt by Republicans to pretend that\nthe biggest threat to this country is transgender kids or gay kids or\ndrag shows. Republicans don't want to talk about rising costs, rising\ngrocery prices, rising gas costs. They don't want to talk about the\ncratering reputation of America in the world. They don't want to talk\nabout the fact the stock market is crashing because of the disastrous\neconomic policies of this President.\n  No. As usual, it is transgender kids and drag shows that are causing\nall the problems in America. How do I know that this bill isn't an\nhonest attempt to celebrate girls in sports? Well, first, if you really\ncared about girls in sports, you would know that we actually already\nhave a national day. It is February 7. It is called National Women and\nGirls in Sports Day. It was signed into law 40 years ago by President\nReagan.\n  The sponsors of this resolution were so eager to shame transgender\nkids that they didn't even check to see if there was already a day.\nNow, folks are going to say Democrats objected to an American Girls in\nSports Day. That is like bringing a resolution before the floor to\ndeclare June 27 Christmas, and when Democrats object, Democrats are\nanti-Christmas.\n  Second, if this bill were really about girls in sports, it would\ncelebrate girls in sports. But this resolution isn't about that. The\nresolution, if you read it, is just about this one issue; transgender\nathletes. Frankly, that is an insult to the thousands of girls who do\nplay sports. Ninety-nine percent of them are never going to compete\nagainst a transgender athlete.\n  I am not saying this isn't an issue that is worth spending a little\nbit of time on, but let's be clear: A female high school athlete in\nthis country is more likely to be killed by a falling object than to\nlose a competition to a biological male.\n  If this resolution were really about celebrating girls in sports\ninstead of just trying to bully and shame transgender kids, then maybe\nsomewhere in the resolution it might talk about Patsy Mink, who\nsuccessfully championed the passage of title IX. Maybe it would mention\niconic women athletes who broke barriers like Billie Jean King or\nAlthea Gibson or Kathrine Switzer or Pat Summitt. Maybe they would talk\nabout the iconic sports teams that put women in sports on the national\nstage, like Louisiana Tech or the U.S. Women's Soccer Team.\n  Maybe it would actually tell the story of how over the last 50 years,\nwe have gone from 300,000 girls in high school sports to 3.4 million\ntoday, but it doesn't do any of that. The text of this resolution isn't\nabout the history of girls and women entering high school and college\nsports. It is not a celebration of those iconic teams and athletes.\nInstead, this resolution is just a tactic, another one, to scare and\nmislead the public and to bully vulnerable kids. That is the reason\nthat I am on the floor, once again, to object. Therefore, I object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.\n  The Senator from Tennessee.\n  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I find my colleague's comments so very\ninteresting, and I think it would have served him well to actually read\nthe resolution. So I am going to read part of it so that my colleagues\nknow what this does because it does talk about celebrating these\nathletes.\n  Here you go:\n\n       Whereas athletic participation has an important, positive\n     impact on young girls, improving their physical health, self-\n     confidence, and discipline;\n       Whereas women have been responsible for some of the\n     greatest athletic feats in the sports history of the United\n     States, from the Olympic games to professional competition;\n\n  He wanted to make certain that some of these greats like Pat Summitt\nand our Lady Vols are recognized. Absolutely. That is what we are\ndoing:\n\n       Whereas female athletes have served as inspirations for\n     generations of women and girls;\n\n  And then we talk about title IX. We talk about:\n\n       Whereas there are fundamental biological differences\n     between men and women that put women at a competitive\n     disadvantage in sports and jeopardize their safety during\n     competition;\n\n  And 79 percent of the American people agree with this.\n  Then we go through:\n\n       Whereas, since 2003, biological men have displaced women\n     and girls from 950 championship titles, medals, scholarships,\n     and records they should have rightly won, including at least\n     28 women's sports titles in volleyball, swimming, mountain\n     biking, track and field, weightlifting, and cycling.\n\n  We look at the policies that have been enacted to protect women and\nthe imperative to make certain they are athletically protected and then\nsetting up October 10 as the day that would be American Girls in Sports\nDay and continuing to recognize that year after year.\n  Now, my colleague from Connecticut probably knows that this issue of\nprotecting women and girls in sports is very, very popular in\nConnecticut. One of Connecticut's biggest track stars is a Conrad High\nSchool senior there, a male-to-female athlete who holds the State's top\n2023-2024 rankings in the girls outdoor high jump, long jump, and\ntriple jump according to athletic.net.\n  Then you look at--there are two individuals, two boys who identify as\nfemale, they competed on a Connecticut high school track team from 2017\nto 2020, and there were--and I want to be sure we look at what this\ndoes to girls who are trying to compete. This is why this issue is so\npopular.\n  Here are the stats. There were 93 times when a girl was denied an\nindividual or relay championship because of these two male athletes who\nwere competing as females--93 times. A girl who had trained, who had\nworked out, who sought to win, to represent her team--they were denied\nbecause two boys were competing as females. Ninety-three times.\n  There were 52 times when a girl was denied the advancement to a\nchampionship meet. Now, think about that. We all have children. We know\nthe heartbreak when someone has trained and trained and trained, not\njust for days or weeks or months but for years, and they are denied the\nability to move forward because there is a boy competing in a female\ncategory.\n  There were 39 times when a girl was denied an opportunity to advance\nto finals, 17 times when a girl was denied an All-New England honor, 11\ntimes when a girl lost a meet record, and 23 girls--23--were denied a\nConnecticut State Open team championship.\n  In other words, allowing these two boys to compete as females and\ncompete against girls denied girls opportunities and awards 235 times.\nThat is one State.\n  So I would remind my colleagues they are on the wrong side of this\nissue. Seventy-nine percent of the American people say it is wrong for\nmen to compete in women's athletics. Sixty-seven percent of Democrats\nsay it is wrong to have men compete in women's athletics.\n  It is lost opportunity. It is lost recognition. It is lost success\nfor women.\n  What ever happened to people on the left that supported women's\nrights, women's safety, supported title IX? Obviously, they have thrown\nit to the wayside.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.\n\n                    Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act\n\n  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few moments about\nincome tax filing season. I realize the Presiding Officer would\nprobably prefer to be condemned to hearing O.J. jokes for the rest of\neternity than to hear me talk about Federal income tax filing, but it\nis important for Americans and my people back in Louisiana because we\nhave a new deduction for people who have uninsured losses from natural\ndisasters. It is really important in my State because many of my people\nhave suffered damages, for which they did not receive insurance\npayments, from Hurricanes Laura, Delta, Ida, and Francine.\n  We passed this new deduction in December. It is called the Federal\nDisaster Tax Relief Act. What it does is the following: It changes the\nlaw. It now says that if you are a victim of a natural disaster like a\nhurricane and you have a loss that is not paid for by your insurance,\nyou can now deduct off your income tax dollar for dollar any uninsured\nproperty damage in excess of $500.\n  Why is that important? Well, under the old rules, you were limited in\nyour\n\n[[Page S1484]]\n\ndeduction. You could only deduct your uninsured property losses that\nwere in excess of 10 percent of your adjusted gross income. I know that\nsounds complicated, and it is kind of complicated. But rather than\nbelaboring the point, the bottom line is this: As a result of this bill\nthat we all worked on and we passed, you can now deduct more, and this\nis the first time people will be able to do this.\n  Let me say it again. If you had an uninsured property loss, you can\nnow deduct any of that loss above $500. This also applies in addition\nto the standard deduction. So if you take the standard deduction, as\nmost Americans do, you can take this additional deduction on top of it.\n  I would also like to point out to all Americans but especially my\npeople back home in Louisiana that this tax deduction is retroactive.\nIt goes all the way back to 2020. So that means that going back to\n2020, if you had uninsured losses, you can now deduct them if they\nexceed $500.\n  I know folks are thinking, well, I already filed my income taxes for\n2021 and 2022 and 2023. You can file an amended return. It is very\nsimple to do. You just file an amended return that says: There has been\na change in the law, and I am entitled to have this higher deduction,\nand therefore the Federal Government owes me money, and therefore\nplease send me my check.\n  So I wanted to make sure that Americans knew about this new tax\nprovision we passed.\n\n                               Inflation\n\n  Mr. President, the second thing I want to talk about is a subject\nthat some people want to avoid, but I don't, and the American people\ndon't. It is on the minds of every American. That is high prices. I\nknow there are other issues that are important that we are talking\nabout: male athletes in women's sports--that is important;\nimmigration--that is important; national security--we are talking about\nthat, and that is important; the Middle East; Ukraine. I could go on.\nBut the single most important issue that moms and dads worry about in\nAmerica today when they lie down to sleep at night and can't is\ninflation, high prices.\n  I don't want to dwell on the past, but President Biden's\nadministration was an inflation machine. We saw inflation get as high\nat one point as 10 percent. What does that mean? That means that prices\nwere going up every day, every month, at the rate of 10 percent\nannualized. Bidenomics, in most people's minds, became paying more to\nlive worse. I mean, inflation just was gutting the American people like\na fish. It happened because of all this breathtaking amount of money\nPresident Biden's administration spent, trillions of dollars--the\nAmerican Rescue Plan, the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act. They\ninjected trillions of dollars into the economy, frankly, as we are\nfinding out now, most of it in wasteful spending that caused too many\ndollars to chase too few goods. Unless you are master class dumb, you\nknow that every single time, that leads to inflation.\n  Thanks to the efforts of the Federal Reserve, inflation came down. It\nwent down from 10 percent to--today, it is between 2 and 3 percent,\ndepending on whose numbers you believe. And that is good. I am happy it\nhappened. That is called disinflation.\n  When inflation goes from 10 percent to 3 percent, that means prices\nare still rising, but they are just not rising as quickly as they were.\nAnd that is a good thing, but it doesn't lower prices. It doesn't mean\nthat we have now lower prices. They just aren't as high as they would\nhave been if we hadn't tried to control inflation. That is called\ndisinflation. Deflation is when prices actually go down. Deflation is\nwhen prices actually go down.\n  What the American people are wondering every single day as they sell\nblood plasma to go to the grocery store is, when am I going to get some\nrelief from these high prices? And we do need to provide them relief.\n  I want to talk about three ways that we are in the process of trying\nto reduce those prices that my Democratic colleagues caused. And I\ndon't mean to pick on all my Democratic colleagues, but as I have said\nbefore, I like breakfast food and straight answers. No economist in\nAmerica believes that this inflation happened as a result of\nhappenstance. It happened because of the breathtaking amount of money\nthat President Biden spent.\n  There are three things we are doing to try to get these prices down.\nNo. 1, reduce spending. You see it every single day from President\nTrump. He said he was going to audit Federal spending, and that is\nexactly what he is doing.\n  Now, there are some people that are mad. There are people that are\nvery mad at President Trump and Mr. Musk and others for discovering all\nof this waste. The people that are mad don't seem to be mad at the\npeople who caused the waste; they are mad at the President and Mr. Musk\nfor finding the waste. I find that a little bit ironic.\n  But the point is that we are trying to reduce spending, and you are\ngoing to see it in our reconciliation bill that we are going to pass,\nas the Presiding Officer knows. You are going to see it in our budget,\nif we ever pass one. We are trying to reduce spending because our debt\nis $36 trillion, and it is going up at the rate of $7 million a minute.\nI have been talking 5 minutes, maybe; it has grown $35 million while I\nwas talking.\n  So we are trying to reduce government spending to get this debt down\nbut also to reduce high prices. Why does it matter? Because the less\nmoney that government spends, the less stimulative government is on the\nprivate sector. When government spends money--there is a finite amount\nof money--when government spends money, it is money that we are\nspending instead of the private sector to create jobs and to increase\nwages.\n  So the first thing we are doing--the new administration and the new\nCongress--is to try to reduce spending, and if we are successful, that\nwill lower these prices.\n  No. 2, deregulation. The Federal Government wants to regulate every\nbreath we take--every breath we take.\n  I wish you could see all of the Federal regulations. If you stacked\nthem right here--if you stack every single Federal regulation right\nhere, you could probably stand on this thing and paint the ceiling. It\nis just amazing.\n  Each one of these regulations has a cost. The cost of all of our\nregulations today is in excess of $2 trillion--not billion, not\nmillion--$2 trillion. What does that mean? That means when a business\nproduces a product or it delivers a service and it has to comply with a\nmeaningless, gnarly Federal regulation which costs money, that extra\nexpense is added to the cost of the product of the service.\n  Duh.\n  I mean, businesses have to stay in business. They can't eat the cost.\nSo they pass it on. That leads to higher prices.\n  So the second thing that we are doing--we are working on it every\nday. It hasn't been talked about a lot. We passed some bills here on\nthe floor of the Senate, but the administration is doing even more. We\nare deregulating. We are getting rid of all of these excess regulations\nwhose costs are greater than their benefit. I think the President said\nhe has a new rule that if you are in the bureaucracy and you want to\npromulgate a new rule, you can do it if it is really necessary, but you\nhave to get rid of 10 others. If we do that successfully, that will\nreduce prices.\n  So the first thing we are doing is cutting spending to get down these\nhigh prices. The second thing we are doing is implementing Federal\nderegulation. The third thing we are doing--we are working on it as we\nspeak, as you know, Mr. President.\n  We have to grow this economy. I mentioned the high spending and the\ndebt that has led to higher prices. Think about this. Since 2019, 5\nyears ago, the American population increased 2 percent. The Federal\nbudget has increased 55 percent--2 percent population increase, Federal\nspending is up 55 percent. That is just a fact. The numbers are the\nnumbers. I know we have had some inflation. We haven't had 55-percent\nworth of inflation. That is just a fact.\n  Every dollar that the Federal Government spends is a dollar that\nbusiness people don't have to invest. Why is that important? Because\nthey invest; they grow their business; they add more jobs; the business\nbecomes more profitable; and wages rise.\n  The third way we are attacking these high prices is by trying to\nstimulate the economy to increase wages so that we actually can grow\nout of these high prices so that people will have more money to spend\nwhen they buy a car or\n\n[[Page S1485]]\n\ngo to the grocery store. We are not going to do that with tepid GDP\ngrowth.\n  If you go back to 2010--what, 15 years now? America has experienced\naverage gross domestic product growth--that means how much your economy\nis growing, as you know, Mr. President. Average GDP growth is a little\nover 2 percent. That is not going to get it. That is not going to get\nit. In fact, now when we have 2.5 percent GDP growth, we get so\nexcited. We are so happy we want to have a toga party. Well, 2.5\npercent is not going to get it. In order to grow out of these high\nprices and increase wages, we are going to have to increase GDP growth\nto at least 3 percent. And that used to be normal for America. That\nused to be very, very doable and very normal.\n  How are we going to do that? We are going to do that through the Tax\nCode. We have about $4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts that we implemented\nback in 2017 that caused the economy to grow and wages to go up until\nCOVID hit. Those tax cuts are expiring here very shortly, and we are\ngoing to extend them. If we don't, it will be, in effect, a tax\nincrease by $4.5 trillion. That will send our growth down, not up.\n  We are also going to change some other provisions of the Tax Code;\nand in doing so, we are not going to add to our deficit. We are going\nto match those tax decreases with spending savings so that we do not\nadd to the national debt. That is what we are doing on inflation.\n  I didn't want this to be lost in translation because of all the other\nimportant things we are talking about.\n  We are well aware that high prices are gutting the American people\nlike a fish. But by reducing spending, by deregulating the economy, and\nby designing a Tax Code that looks like somebody designed it on\npurpose, we are going to get those high prices down.\n  Point 3, I am speaking of saving money. I talked a little bit about\npublic radio and public television in America--the Corporation for\nPublic Broadcasting, NPR, PBS. These are public TV and radio stations.\nThe American people spend about a half billion dollars a year and give\nit directly to public TV. They give it to the Corporation for Public\nBroadcasting.\n  Corporation for Public Broadcasting picks its favorite local TV\nstations and radio stations, gives money to them, and local TV and\nradio stations buy programming from NPR and PBS, which is loosely\naffiliated with Corporation for Public Broadcasting.\n  There was a time when it was necessary because we only had three TV\nstations and few radio stations. And people in rural areas depended on\nthe government for the media. Those days are long gone, as we know. We\nnow have a breathtaking array of ways to get information, everything\nfrom podcasts to Facebook to Twitter to Google News to cable TV to\nstreaming. We no longer need to spend half a billion dollars a year or\nhalf a trillion dollars a year--we spent $14.5 billion since we started\nfunding public radio and television. We no longer need to do it.\n  I mean, we don't fund CNN. We don't subsidize CNN, and if somebody\nproposed to, I would vote against it. We don't subsidize FOX News. If\nsomebody introduced a bill to subsidize FOX News, I would vote against\nit. Why are we subsidizing these radio and television stations? They\nneed to compete with everybody else.\n  The final point I want to make on this subject, the audience for\npublic radio and public television is declining. Let me say that again.\nThe audience for public radio and public television, which your tax\ndollars pay for, is declining. Why is that? There are a lot of reasons\nfor it, but I will tell you one. People used to tune into PBS and NPR\nand Corporation for Public bias--Public Broadcasting--Freudian slip\nthere--because those stations played it right straight down the middle.\nBut they don't anymore. They are very, very biased in their reporting.\nWe all know that. I mean, all you have to do is listen to them.\n  This is America. You are entitled--I despise opinion journalists, but\nit is constitutional. On the First Amendment, you can say what you\nwant, within reason. I support that. You are not free if you can't say\nwhat you think, so I don't want you to misconstrue what I am saying.\nThese local stations that are getting money from the taxpayers have\nevery right to report what they want. But they don't have a right to do\nit and offer a jaundiced point of view using taxpayer dollars. That is\nmy point.\n  I just wanted to, as I have done in the past, I wanted to read a few\nmore headlines. This is the kind of reporting that is being done today\nwith your tax money on NPR, National Public Radio, and PBS. I will\nstart with NPR. Here is one of the headlines of NPR: ``Arguments that\ntrans athletes have an unfair advantage lack evidence to support.''\n  That is opinion journalism. Here is another headline from NPR: ``A\nBrief History of How Racism Shaped Interstate Highways.''\n  I did not know our interstate highways were racists. I thought they\nwere concrete. Not according to NPR.\n  Here is another NPR headline: ``Trump `Embodies Nearly Every Aspect\nof a Racist,' Author Says.''\n  Another: ``The Nation: Confronting Trump's Coded Racism.''\n  And another: ``Is Trump's Call For `Law And Order' A Coded Racial\nMessage?''\n  As I said, these are your tax dollars at work.\n  ``Sexism Is Out In The Open In The 2016 Campaign. That May Have Been\nInevitable.'' That is another headline.\n  ``Is Trump Really That Racist?'' Another headline.\n  And another headline: ``FRONTLINE traces the `ambition and revenge'\ndriving SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas.'' NPR is reporting that Justice\nThomas is motivated by revenge and ambition.\n  Another headline from NPR: ``What can the White House do to confront\nthe narrative around Biden's ability?''\n  It wasn't a narrative. I mean, I don't hate anybody, and I am sorry\nthis was the case, but President Biden had neurodegenerative disease.\nIt wasn't a narrative; it was just a fact. I am sorry, but it was just\na fact.\n  Last headline from NPR: ``Scientists Start to Tease Out the Subtler\nWays Racism Hurts Health.''\n  Your tax dollars at work. I don't want to just pick on NPR. Here are\na couple which you saw on television, PBS, paid for with your tax\ndollars. First headline: ``Talking to Young Children About Race and\nRacism.''\n  Another headline: ``How America's history of racism connects to\ndivisions today.'' Another headline from PBS: ``The hidden racism of\nyoung white Americans.''\n  Your tax dollars. Another headline: ``AP FACT CHECK: Trump seeds race\nanimus with COVID falsehood.''\n  Another headline: ``Biden trumpets economic gains, but struggles to\nget credit.''\n  Another headline from PBS: `` `The Other Olympians:' Transgender\nAthletes in the Nazi Era.''\n  Come on, give me a break. Gag me with a spoon.\n  The final headline I will read: ``Debunking common myths about\ngender-affirming care for youth.''\n  Let me say it again, Mr. President, these television stations and\nradio stations that are getting money from the Federal Government--your\ntax dollars--they have every right under the First Amendment to say\nthese things. They do and I support the First Amendment. But they don't\nhave an inalienable right to report these things using opinion\njournalism that no fair-minded American can construe as anything but\nrepresenting one point of view with your tax dollars. I am going to try\nto stop subsidizing media, not just PBS and not just NPR but any form\nof media that somehow is getting Federal taxpayer dollars. It is just\nnot right. It is not fair. I have a bill to do that. We are also going\nto pursue it through reconciliation. I think President Trump and Mr.\nMusk are going to pursue it on their own, and I think that is a very\ngood thing.\n\n  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for\nthe quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                              S.J. Res. 3\n\n  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, today's vote to proceed on this\nCongressional\n\n[[Page S1486]]\n\nReview Act resolution should be renamed the ``Elon Musk `Get Out of\nJail Free' Card.''\n  This resolution gives Elon Musk the ability to launch his xMoney site\nwithout worrying about breaking the law and getting caught. Of course,\nthis is also a ``get out of jail free'' card for others like, Apple Pay\nand Google Pay and other online platforms that handle people's money,\nand there is a good reason to oppose it.\n  This bill is another example of how Republicans in Congress, in\nconjunction with President Trump and Elon Musk in the White House, are\nsticking it to families and middle-class consumers all over America and\ndeclaring it open season for fraudsters. In fact, just a few hours ago,\nTrump and Elon dropped the Agency's lawsuit against Zelle and the big\nbanks that own Zelle for failing to protect consumers from being\nscammed out of nearly $1 billion on their app. Now Republicans are\ntrying to roll back the CFPB's ability to protect Americans from\ngetting scammed on payment apps like Venmo and Cash App, and they are\nmaking it easier for unelected billionaire Elon Musk to cheat American\nconsumers and line his own pockets.\n  So here is the back story: Musk bought Twitter, lost buckets of\nmoney, then decided he could recover and make more money by setting up\na new financial services arm called xMoney. Now, in ordinary times, he\ncould do that, but the CFPB would be responsible for enforcing consumer\nfinancial laws for xMoney. It would also be authorized to examine the\nbooks and records to prevent illegal practices and make sure that\nconsumers are getting a fair shake. But co-President Musk doesn't want\nthat, and Donald Trump and Senate Republicans are willing to do Elon's\nbidding, and that is what brings us here today.\n  They want to roll back a rule called the larger participant rule that\nwas put in place to protect consumers from abuses on these apps and to\nensure that these apps are being monitored for following the law, just\nlike banks get monitored for doing the same kinds of things.\n  The rules protect consumers' privacy when they use digital wallets\nlike Apple Pay or Google Pay. The rules also help companies get their\nmoney back when they get defrauded on PayPal or Cash App or Venmo.\n  Frankly, the rule is great for consumers. It cracks down on tens of\nmillions of dollars of fraud--fraud that has surged in recent years. It\nprotects consumers' privacy, ensuring that apps are not taking your\nprivate spending data and selling it to anybody who comes along. It\nhelps prevent debanking, a problem that my colleagues on the opposite\nside of the aisle have spent a lot of time talking about.\n  The CFPB rule protects consumers' peer-to-peer accounts from being\nclosed or frozen without notice or justification. It prevents these\napps from unfairly depriving consumers of funds that they need to be\nable to buy stuff. Three-quarters of all Americans have used these\npeer-to-peer apps, and millions of Americans have had the sad\nexperience of getting ripped off on peer-to-peer payments apps like\nVenmo and Cash App and PayPal.\n  Now, if you think that you are dealing with a legitimate person on\nthe other side and then the next thing you know your money is gone and\nyou are left without any recourse, that is wrong, and it is even worse\nif it happens because a payment app isn't meeting its basic\nresponsibilities of preventing fraud on its own platform. The CFPB rule\nhelps to protect those millions of Americans who use payment apps,\nmaking sure that both their personal data and their money are safe.\n  This is a rule that is good for consumers, but it is not good for\nbillionaires, who have figured out how to make money by defrauding\nthose consumers. It is a very familiar story now. President Trump and\nthe Republicans are on the side of the billionaires. They are acting to\nhelp out their pals Elon and Jeff and Mark. Hard-working people who\njust want their payment apps to work and who don't want to get cheated\nas part of the deal are the ones who will lose.\n  Never mind that this is the Agency that works so hard for the little\nguy. Never mind that the CFPB has returned more than $21 billion\ndirectly to American consumers who were cheated. Never mind that Elon\nMusk and Donald Trump are trying to kill this rule, and they are trying\nto kill the entire Agency.\n  Musk and Republicans in Congress are moving quickly to take the\nfinancial cop off the beat. They are hoping that people across this\ncountry won't notice or that people are so distracted and overwhelmed\nby everything else that is going on that they won't try to stop them.\n\n  But your eyes are not fooling you. It is happening in plain sight.\n  Ahead of Donald Trump's speech tonight at the Capitol, Republicans\nare voting to hurt millions of American consumers. Why? Just to protect\nElon Musk's business ventures from a financial cop on the beat who\nwould make sure that he follows the law.\n  I hope the American public is paying attention tonight. I hope my\nRepublican colleagues are paying attention here in the Senate as well.\nIt is not too late for them to reconsider this vote.\n  Make no mistake, Elon Musk locked the CFPB's staff out of the\nbuilding to protect his own payment app boondoggle, and now he wants\nCongress to block this rule to legalize his boondoggle.\n  And, next week, Republicans intend to mark up legislation that would\nclear the decks for Elon to issue xMoney as his own stablecoin without\nguardrails to protect consumers, to protect national security, or to\nprotect the financial stability of our entire country.\n  The line between right and wrong is clear. On one side, Senate\nDemocrats are standing up for Americans who just don't want to get\ncheated when they use a financial app, and on the other side, we have\ngot con men, rip-off artists, Elon Musk, and Big Tech billionaires.\nWhich side will our Senate Republicans choose?\n  I yield the floor.\n  I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, following their election loss, the\nBiden-Harris administration rushed an eleventh-hour rule through the\nFederal Government to allow the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to\nstart regulating nonbank entities, specifically, around digital\nconsumer payment systems.\n  These payment systems are applications--think about it--like PayPal\nor Zelle. Consumers have widely had positive experiences with these\npayment systems. According to the CFPB's own database, only about 1\npercent of the 1.3 million complaints last year involved these payment\nsystems. These payment system companies, actually, are already being\nregulated at the State or Federal level. In other words, this eleventh-\nhour regulation the Biden administration rushed through is pointless.\nThe Biden-Harris rule is a regulation in search of a problem. It is a\nrule without a reason. Furthermore, the cost-benefit analysis that the\nCFPB did--an audit by the CFPB--said that it would only cost $25,000.\nNow, having come from the business sector myself, that probably is the\nfirst day of outside attorneys' fees at $25,000. It is widely off the\nmark.\n  This one-size-fits-all solution in search of a problem expands the\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau's authority unnecessarily. In\nfact, I would argue that this is in a way that was unintended by\nCongress. The CFPB is supposed to be looking over the financial\nservices sector with regard to banking, not over these nonbank payment\nsystems.\n  The CFPB even failed to define the market they are seeking to\nsupervise, much like how the Biden EPA and Obama before that tried to\nexpand the EPA's authority under the waters of the United States rule.\nThis is an expansion of the CFPB's authority that is beyond what we\nwant to allow.\n  I am proud to be able to lead the pushback with the Congressional\nReview Act to stop this unnecessary rule. I am also honored to work\nwith my fellow Nebraskan, Congressman  Mike Flood, who is leading the\nsame effort over in the House. This is an opportunity for us to ease\nthe regulatory\n\n[[Page S1487]]\n\nburden the previous administration put upon the American people.\n  Thank you to Leader Thune for bringing this resolution to the floor\nfor a vote.\n  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote yes to overturn and stop\nthis unnecessary rule that is expanding the authority of the Consumer\nFinancial Protection Bureau unnecessarily and despite the intent of\nCongress. The CFPB's overregulation of nonbank digital consumer payment\napplications should stop. We can do it here.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from Texas.\n  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the decentralized finance industry is in its\ninfancy. It is a new technology in the digital asset space which\nenables two individuals to exchange cryptocurrencies without a third\nparty sitting in between them. Although that sounds straightforward,\nthe technology holds potential for technological and financial\ninnovation that we are just beginning to explore. In that sense, DeFi\nis a microcosm of the crypto revolution, which is unleashing innovation\nand economic growth and, indeed, personal liberty.\n  I think of my home State of Texas when it comes to cryptocurrencies.\nTexas is becoming an oasis for Bitcoin and for cryptocurrency\nworldwide. In Texas, we have abundant, low-cost energy, and as the\nenergy capital of the world, Texas has both the expertise and the ethos\nof Texas.\n  The Lone Star State was founded by a bunch of wildcatters who were\nguys with fourth grade educations who began drilling holes in the\nground. One after the other, they became the richest men on Earth. That\nis Texas, the spirit of Texas, and that is the spirit of crypto as\nwell.\n  So what is the rule that Congress is in the process of repealing? At\nits core, DeFi was designed to allow individuals to freely buy, sell,\nand exchange digital assets without reliance on third-party\nintermediaries. It is ironic, therefore, that in the final hours of the\nBiden administration, the IRS finalized a new rule attacking America's\ncryptocurrency industry and more specifically DeFi.\n  Under the gross proceeds reporting by brokers that regularly provide\nservices effectuating digital asset sales--that is a mouthful--the\nBiden administration expanded the definition of ``broker'' to include\nthe software developers who create DeFi software, protocols,\ntechnology, and so on. They define ``coders''--computer programmers--as\n``brokers.''\n  The IRS rule is untenable on its face. These software developers--\nthey never touch any of the cryptocurrency being exchanged. DeFi\ninterfaces are neutral technological tools, not financial\nintermediaries. They do not facilitate transactions. The Infrastructure\nInvestment and Jobs Act could not have been intended for software\ndevelopers to be classified as financial intermediaries for the simple\nreason that their software never holds or controls user funds.\n  In fact, the rule is not just ironic, but it is incoherent. The\nsoftware these developers are creating is designed to facilitate crypto\nexchanges between two individuals without a third party in between.\nWhat we have here are software developers--not brokers--developing\nsoftware to facilitate peer-to-peer exchanges without brokers. That is\nthe entire point.\n  If left in place, this rule would undermine innovation by turning\ndevelopers into brokers and through reporting requirements that are\nincredibly onerous for crypto startups to meet. Those developers would\ninevitably go overseas instead.\n  If we were to allow this rule to stand, we would be handing China the\nopportunity to tighten its grip on the digital asset industry, stifling\ninnovation, economic freedom, and financial sovereignty.\n  In that sense, this issue isn't just about crypto; it is about\nstopping unchecked Federal overreach. The Federal Government can do a\nlot of damage to crypto if the government screws it up.\n  The requirements, in turn, would risk the privacy of millions of\nAmericans because software developers would be required to collect\npersonal information and pass it on to the IRS.\n  Just for emphasis, this rule would compel DeFi developers--people who\nare creating cutting-edge technology to enhance the privacy of\nAmericans--to collect, to store, and to report the personal identifying\ninformation of tens of millions of Americans and then hand it over to\nthe IRS--an Agency with a long and well-documented history of\nmishandling sensitive taxpayer information.\n  These are serious privacy and surveillance risks. The IRS has already\nproven to the American people that it cannot be trusted, and it has\nalready demonstrated its reckless disregard for privacy. Just last\nyear, a former IRS contractor was sentenced to 5 years in prison for\ndisclosing thousands of tax returns and return information for high-\nranking government officials and related entities and individuals.\nThese private taxpayer files were stolen and subsequently leaked to the\npress.\n  Indeed, DeFi is a powerful technology precisely because it undermines\nbureaucrat control over American citizens. The foundation of financial\nfreedom is the right to engage in financial transactions without\nunnecessary government interference. The American people should be free\nto spend their money the way they see fit.\n  Far too often, we are increasingly seeing and hearing the opposite:\nthreats to individual freedom, enforced through financial control.\nBanks are denying services to Americans because of their political\nbeliefs or their line of work. We saw it first under Obama with\nOperation Choke Point, and we saw it again, tragically, under the Biden\nadministration.\n  These actions aren't just abuses of power; they strike at the very\nfoundation of a free society.\n  DeFi isn't controlled by Washington bureaucrats. Indeed, by design,\nit can't be. That is one of the many things I love about it. DeFi's\nnoncustodial technology lets citizens hold and spend their own money,\nsecurely, without needing permission from some government-backed\ninstitution.\n  It is no wonder the Chinese Communist Party hates crypto in general\nand DeFi in particular. China has already banned cryptocurrency within\nits borders because it operates beyond government control, and central\ngovernments hate that. And, of course, the Chinese Government is one of\nthe most dystopian, authoritarian regimes in the world, and so they\nhave made cryptocurrency transactions illegal because they view those\ntransactions--they rightly view those transactions--as threats to their\nauthoritarian power.\n  So, yes, every time we create a new ecosystem using something like\nDeFi, that is an ecosystem insulated from China, and it is an ecosystem\nthat China views as a threat. That is exactly why we must ensure that\nAmericans have access to this technology. We should make sure it\nthrives right here in the United States.\n  There has been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about\nsupporting cryptocurrency. We now have an opportunity to deliver\nresults for the American people. Earlier this afternoon, we cast the\ninitial vote on moving to proceed to the CRA to repeal this rule. I\nhave to say, I was incredibly heartened that 70 Senators voted together\nin support of my legislation, and 18 Democratic Senators crossed the\naisle and voted in support of repealing this ridiculous and abusive\nrule.\n  That is a powerful statement. It is a powerful statement to bitcoin\nand crypto that Congress is not going to let Washington crush the\ninnovation that is driving so much prosperity. I thank the 18\nDemocratic Senators who crossed over, and on this final vote I urge\neven more: Come join us.\n  I will say--it is an interesting note--if you look at the list of the\nDemocratic Senators who voted with us, it is almost every single\nDemocratic Senator under the age of 60. There is a clear delineating\nline, and I think there is a reason for that.\n  Let's stand on the side of innovation. Let's stand on the side of\njobs. Let's stand on the side of prosperity. Let's stand on the side of\nfreedom. Let's foster innovation, cut government overreach, and unleash\nthe full potential of the American economy. Let's rescind this rule,\nand let's unleash the future.\n  Mr. President, I yield back all time on Calendar No. 11, S.J. Res. 3.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.\n\n[[Page S1488]]\n\n  The clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third\ntime.\n  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading\nand was read the third time.\n\n                          Vote on S.J. Res. 3\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the\nthird time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?\n  Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk called the roll.\n  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the\nSenator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice) and the Senator from Wyoming\n(Ms. Lummis).\n  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis)\nwould have voted ``yea.''\n  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin)\nis necessarily absent.\n  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 27, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--70\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Booker\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cortez Masto\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fetterman\n     Fischer\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Kennedy\n     Kim\n     King\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lujan\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rosen\n     Rounds\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schmitt\n     Schumer\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Wicker\n     Young\n\n                                NAYS--27\n\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Hassan\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Klobuchar\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Sanders\n     Shaheen\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                             NOT VOTING--3\n\n     Justice\n     Lummis\n     Slotkin\n  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 3) was passed as follows:\n\n                              S.J. Res. 3\n\n       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the\n     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress\n     disapproves the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue\n     Service relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers\n     That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset\n     Sales'' (89 Fed. Reg. 106928 (December 30, 2024)), and such\n     rule shall have no force or effect.\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2025-03-04-pt1-PgS1477-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 32.6150911860168, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}