{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-05-08-pt1-PgS2808", "2025-05-08", 119, 1, null, null, "PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RELATING TO \"ADDRESSING THE HOMEWORK GAP...", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S2808", "S2813", "[{\"name\": \"John Thune\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Charles E. Schumer\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Barrasso\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard J. Durbin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Joni Ernst\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Edward J. Markey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chris Van Hollen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Margaret Wood Hassan\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"7\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"7\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. S2808", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 77 (Thursday, May 8, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 77 (Thursday, May 8, 2025)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S2808-S2813]\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,\nUNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS\nCOMMISSION RELATING TO ``ADDRESSING THE HOMEWORK GAP THROUGH THE E-RATE\n                               PROGRAM''\n\n                               GENIUS Act\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it has been well over a decade since the\nterm ``cryptocurrency'' entered our lexicon. Like many innovations,\ncryptocurrencies were at first seen as a novelty--something used by few\nand understood by even fewer.\n  But that changed quickly. More people began using and purchasing\ndigital assets, innovation took place, and crypto demonstrated its\nstaying power.\n  Stablecoins are an important part of the crypto ecosystem. Many\ndigital asset advocates believe in holding Bitcoin, given its price\nfluctuations and growth in value over the last several years.\n  Stablecoins, however, have a value that is pegged to an asset,\nusually the U.S. dollar. They offer the speed and security of the\nblockchain with the stability and usability of a dollar bill, and they\nare a business and consumer friendly way of making payments.\n  Hundreds of billions of dollars of stablecoins are in circulation\ntoday. The vast majority are dollar denominated. But in the United\nStates, stablecoins have operated in a legal gray zone. Stablecoin\nissuers trying to follow the rules can't be sure what rules to follow.\n  The Biden administration chose to regulate crypto companies by\narbitrary enforcement measures. Regulators filed numerous lawsuits\nagainst crypto firms. These hostile actions led a number of U.S.-based\ncompanies to consider moving out of the United States altogether.\n  I think we all agree the United States should be the world's leader\nin financial innovation. Stablecoins should be ``Made in the U.S.A.''\nBut we can't lead in innovation if there is no clarity for the\ninnovators.\n  The GENIUS Act provides that clarity. It is the first step in\nbringing digital assets into our financial system by setting a clear\nframework for stablecoins. To be clear, Americans are already using\nstablecoins and will continue to use them with or without this\nlegislation. What this bill does is establish a framework that protects\nconsumers and safeguards national security while promoting that\ninnovation right here in the United States.\n  The GENIUS Act would implement light-touch and tailored standards for\nstablecoin issuers so consumers can trust whom they are doing business\nwith. Reserve requirements would give consumers confidence in the value\nof the stablecoins that they hold, and the bill's enforcement\nprovisions would provide companies with clarity on what the rules are\nand ensure accountability for any violations.\n  The GENIUS Act would also protect against national security threats\nand money laundering. Stablecoin issuers would be held to the same\nstandards as other financial institutions subject to the Bank Secrecy\nAct. They would need to monitor and report suspicious activity. They\nwould have to comply with U.S. sanctions, and they would have to block\ntransactions that violate State and Federal laws.\n  Stablecoins are operating today without any of these requirements,\nand not passing this bill means allowing the status quo to continue--no\nconsumer protections, no national security safeguards, and the risk of\narbitrary enforcement actions from financial regulators.\n  Passing this bill is also about American strength. It would create\ndemand for the U.S. dollar and for Treasurys. That is a good thing both\nfor our national security and for our fiscal house.\n  This bill is the product of bipartisan consensus building. I am proud\nof the process that this has gone through, and I am grateful to\nSenators Lummis, Hagerty, Gillibrand, and Alsobrooks for their\nleadership on this issue and their work on the bill. Chairman Tim Scott\nhas also been a critical member of the team.\n  The Banking Committee held a 3-hour markup during which the committee\nconsidered 40 amendments to the bill. That bill was reported out by a\nvote of 18 to 6, with 5 Democrats supporting it.\n  But the work didn't end there. Bill sponsors have been meeting for\nweeks--including nights and weekends--since the markup to address\nchanges that made this bill better.\n  Today, we are voting on the sixth--sixth--version of the GENIUS Act,\ndrafted with input from both Republicans and Democrats. And if Senators\nwould like the opportunity to make further modifications to the bill, I\nencourage them to vote for cloture. Once we are on the bill, we can\ndiscuss changes here on the floor. We have had an open process on this\nbill so far. So why stop now?\n  The GENIUS Act is by no means the last word on digital assets. I\nexpect the Senate will continue to work in this space, including work\ntoward market structure legislation to address features of the crypto\nmarket that are not captured solely by stablecoins.\n  But the GENIUS Act is a first step toward bringing digital assets\ninto our financial system and promoting American leadership and\nfinancial innovation. We have the opportunity to move the ball forward\ntoday. I encourage my colleagues to take it.\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 assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. SCHUMER. 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\n                   Recognition of the Minority Leader\n\n  The Democratic leader is recognized.\n\n                                Tariffs\n\n  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Donald Trump's trade war is a gut punch\nto the American people. It is the biggest tax hike on families in half\na century.\n  If Donald Trump is going to tax the American people, they have a\nright to know precisely how much. So, today, I am introducing\nlegislation with Representative Raskin requiring retailers to show\nconsumers precisely how much tariffs are increasing the prices of their\nproducts. It is no different than when your utility bill shows fees or\na receipt shows if a service charge is included or not.\n  Specifically, the legislation that Representative Raskin has\nintroduced in the House and I am introducing in the Senate requires\nlarge retailers to display in a ``clear and conspicuous'' way the\namount that tariffs contribute to a good's final pricetag.\n  Our bill is about transparency. It is about being straight with\nconsumers. It is about informing the consumers how Donald Trump's\ntariffs will impact the family budget. And retailers should like it\nbecause these increases in prices are not their fault; it is Trump's\nfault, with his tariffs.\n  So let the public know. And that is a secondary benefit that will\nmake the public even more angry, and they may call their Republican\nSenators and Congressmen and say join with Democrats and pass some of\nour legislation that would repeal some of these tariffs.\n  The White House growls that companies with the audacity, they said--\naudacity--to be honest with consumers about the cost of tariffs are\nbeing hostile and political. But this is not hostile or political at\nall; it is simply being honest with consumers. It is clarity. It is\ntransparency.\n  It is a smart policy, so of course the White House opposes it because\nthey don't want people to know how much these tariffs are damaging\nthem. It is estimated that if the present tariffs go into effect, the\naverage family will pay $4,000 more. Well, we want to let them know how\nmuch the price is increased for food, for housing, for gasoline, for\ngroceries, for prescription drugs.\n  Last week, for instance, Ford announced they are increasing the price\nof at least three models by as much as $2,000, in part because of\nTrump's tariffs. Under our bill, that $2,000 price hike should be\nspelled out to consumers as in reality what it is--a tariff tax.\n\n[[Page S2809]]\n\n  Americans deserve to know who is picking their pockets. Our bill will\nmake clear to the American people that Donald Trump's tariffs are a\npainful tax eating away at their hard-earned money. It will make clear\nto the American people that Donald Trump's promise to ``lower costs\nstarting on day one'' is a mirage, a fiction--a cruel fiction--all for\na chaotic tariff policy that is sending our economy into a tailspin.\n  On those tariffs themselves, today, Donald Trump is set to announce a\nnew supposed trade deal between the United States and the UK, the\nUnited Kingdom. We are still waiting to get the details, but this much\nis clear: Whatever Donald Trump's announcement with the UK looks like,\nit isn't a triumph of strategy; rather, it is a product of chaos. And\nwith this President, if past is prologue, who knows if this deal will\nactually stick.\n  This is the Trump administration's credo: government by chaos. Just\nlook at how Donald Trump is dealing with Canada, and it tells you\neverything you need to know about how untrustworthy his UK announcement\nis. First, Donald Trump says yes on tariffs with Canada; then he says\nno. Then he insults Canada, calls it the ``51st State.'' Moments later,\nhe meets with Prime Minister Carney and says ``Canada loves us and we\nlove Canada.''\n  No one knows what Donald Trump will say next. If this were a roller\ncoaster, the whiplash would paralyze everybody involved. So American\nbusinesses and American consumers have no faith that the President has\na design. Whatever is in front of his face that day, whatever pressure\nthere might be on him, he reacts. And it doesn't matter if he said the\ncomplete opposite thing a day or a week earlier.\n  Early this morning, members of the President's own Cabinet are\nalready lowering expectations of the deal, saying it is only ``an\nagreement in concept''; ``there's a lot of details to be worked out.''\nAnd we know what happens when that happens, particularly in a Trump\nadministration.\n  Donald Trump's new trade deal with the UK seems to be built entirely\non quicksand. It is likely to be built on quicksand. He blows with the\npolitical winds. When people say he is too reckless, he backs off. When\nthere is criticism of him backing off, he reintroduces the bill. So it\nwould be hard to take anything the President says about this deal\nseriously because, in all likelihood, he will change his mind again.\n\n                             Anti-Semitism\n\n  Mr. President, on anti-Semitism, this morning, the Anti-Defamation\nLeague issued a new report illustrating a disturbing trend I have been\nwarning about: the rise of anti-Semitism in America. Specifically, this\nreport looked at anti-Semitism toward Jewish Members of Congress, which\nhas dramatically risen--something I can attest to firsthand.\n  Social media has become a breeding ground for anti-Semitism. But it\nis not just elected officials. Social media has become an easy way for\nhate groups to organize and proliferate their message against all sorts\nof communities and individuals. They go after Jewish-owned businesses.\nThey go after synagogues. They go after families. They direct anti-\nSemitic slurs even against individuals who might not be Jewish.\n  We must not allow anti-Semitism to grow unabated in America like wild\nweeds. As the great poet Conor Cruise O'Brien said, anti-Semitism is a\nlight sleeper. When there is trouble, somehow anti-Semitism always pops\nits head up--the Jewish people being made scapegoats, as we have been\nfor centuries. It must be confronted at every instance. It must be\nrooted out.\n  We all play a part in fighting back against the forces of\nintolerance. People of all backgrounds, faiths, beliefs, and opinions\nhave a duty to stand up and speak out against hate, no matter where it\ncomes from.\n\n                             Federal Budget\n\n  Mr. President, now, on the Trump budget, if you asked AI to come up\nwith a Federal budget that utterly screws over average Americans, do\nyou know what the AI would come up with? Donald Trump's latest budget\nproposal. So, today, let's look at Trump's so-called skinny budget a\nlittle more closely. It is hard to believe that this is a serious\nproposal.\n  If enacted, the Trump budget would completely gut public safety,\nsomething they say they want to strengthen. Trump's own FBI Director,\nKash Patel, one of the most loyal Trumpites, testified in the House\nyesterday that the FBI can't meet its mission to keep Americans safe\nwith the cuts in Trump's budget.\n  If Kash Patel, one of Donald Trump's most loyal acolytes, says this\nbudget won't work, who else is going to come out against it? How can we\ntake this budget seriously? If Patel is against it, so will be many\nother Cabinet officers, publicly or privately. How carefully was it\neven done? Did the people who put it out know they are slashing the\nFBI? The budget has sloppy and reckless written all over it, and even\nKash Patel agrees.\n  That is not all. The Trump budget would also strangle American\nfamilies. It is an all-out assault on American healthcare. Under Donald\nTrump's budget, America's housing crisis would go from bad to worse.\n  Hell will freeze over before Democrats entertain anything remotely\nclose to Trump's budget. This budget proposal is dead on arrival in the\nSenate, and anything close to it will go nowhere as well.\n\n                                Medicaid\n\n  Mr. President, on Medicaid and the CBO, the Republicans right now are\nstruggling with a very basic idea that the truth sometimes hurts. In\ntheir case, the truth is that Republican policies are so deeply\nunpopular with the American people. Republicans are realizing that, and\nit has left them paralyzed.\n  Now that Republicans actually have to produce a bill, reality is\ncatching up with them. No more bland words. No more: Don't worry; we\nwill protect you. The budget shows what they are actually up to.\n  Yesterday, the CBO reported that no matter which scheme of Medicaid\ncuts Republicans are likely to choose, the result will be that millions\nwill become uninsured. Republicans can try any which way to make their\nbill work, but their numbers just don't add up. There is no way for\nRepublicans to accomplish their massive tax giveaways without\ndevastating millions of working and middle-class people.\n  Even if the Republicans pass a fraction of their proposed Medicaid\ncuts, it still means millions will lose their healthcare. And for what?\nSo that billionaires can get another tax break that they don't need at\na time of high inflation and a possible recession? That is the\ndefinition of cruelty.\n  This is the fundamental problem Republicans are facing right now as\ntheir infighting continues--that their policies are deeply, deeply\nunpopular with the American people--not just blue State Republicans but\npurple and red State Republicans too. Telling the American people that\nyou want to ax their healthcare so that extremely rich people can pay\nless in taxes is a horrible message that virtually hardly anyone in\nAmerica agrees with, but that is precisely what Republicans are trying\nto do. So it is no surprise they are eating their own tails trying to\nfigure out how to proceed.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.\n\n                            Wyoming Veterans\n\n  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week, I had an opportunity, as part\nof Veterans Appreciation Week, to speak with incredible Wyoming\nveterans from all across our State. I thanked them for their service\nand also took the opportunity to listen closely to their concerns.\n  On Tuesday, Senator Cynthia Lummis and I hosted a telephone townhall\nmeeting with Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins. Also, Col. Tim\nSheppard, who is executive director of the Wyoming Veterans Commission,\njoined us on the call.\n  The call was very productive and informative. Wyoming veterans shared\ntheir experience directly with Secretary Collins. They shared with us\nwhat works with the VA and how improvements can still be made. We heard\nmany ideas for improvement. Suggestions ranged from changes to online\nscheduling to more flexibility for out-of-State appointments.\n  Secretary Collins took this feedback seriously. He himself is a\nveteran. He knows that the VA is too bureaucratic. He is committed to\nfixing it. So I am proud to partner with him to deliver the care that\nour veterans deserve.\n  On Wednesday, here in Washington, I met with 16 Wyoming Vietnam\nveterans. They came to town to visit their\n\n[[Page S2810]]\n\nmemorial. These 16 veteran heroes come from across the State: Guernsey,\nThermopolis, Powell, Casper, Cheyenne, Mountain View, Douglas,\nNewcastle, and Green River. Their stories of service and sacrifice are\nmoving.\n  This weekend in Wyoming, we will be holding ``Welcome Home'' events\nacross the State in Afton, Riverton, Sheridan, and Wheatland. It is a\nwelcome home many veterans from Vietnam never really received. It is\nsad to report but true. This weekend, we honor all of our Wyoming\nveterans.\n  Wyoming has one of the highest per-capita rates of veterans in\nAmerica. The pride in those individuals runs deep.\n  It is an honor to represent them here in the Senate, and I am going\nto continue to listen to the concerns of our veterans and work to\nimprove the care they need and continue to honor their sacrifices.\n\n                        Electric Vehicle Mandate\n\n  Mr. President, on another matter, in 2024, in November, on election\nday, voters demanded more economic freedom and less government\noverreach. President Trump and Republicans in Congress heard them. The\nState of California did not.\n  California wants to export its radical and impractical electric\nvehicle mandate to all 50 States. California's mandates are a\nprogressive power grab. They dictate what cars and what trucks\nAmericans can buy and can drive. These mandates aren't limited to\nCalifornia; they are calculated to control the policy of the entire\nNation.\n  Congress must now act to protect the rights of the American people to\ndrive the gas-powered vehicles they want to drive. Last week, House\nRepublicans--with 35 House Democrats joining all of the Republicans--\nvoted to defend that freedom and to defeat this California mandate, and\nit is now up to the Senate to finish the job.\n  California mandates spread far and wide. They affect 133 million\nAmericans--nearly 40 percent of the population of this country. Here is\nwhy: Twelve States copy the California mandate to ban gas-powered cars\nby 2036. Ten States copy the California mandate to ban gas-powered\ntrucks by 2036. These include large-population States, like New York.\n  Even the junior Senator from California admits that California's\nliberal mandates affect the entire country, and he says he is very\nproud of it. The American people think differently.\n  The Washington Post reported last month that ``Americans are losing\ninterest in EVs.'' That is the quote. The Washington Post: ``Americans\nare losing interest in EVs.'' Interest in owning an EV has dropped 8\npercent since 2023.\n  The message is clear: Americans don't want these EVs even when the\ngovernment tries to bribe them--bribe them--into buying them and using\nthem. People want to buy the car and truck that works best for them and\nwhere they live and the life they lead.\n  The average price of an electric vehicle is $62,000, which is $16,000\nmore than comparable gas-powered vehicles. The California mandates that\nthe Democrats are pushing would raise prices even more. It would also\nlimit options.\n  This isn't progress. This is a policy that punishes working families,\npunishes farmers, punishes truckers, punishes the people that live in\nrural areas.\n  Worse, EV batteries rely on China. Eighty percent of EV battery\ncomponents come from China. Republicans here in the Senate are fighting\nto end America's dependence on China. The California mandate supported\nby the Democrats makes that dependence even more dangerous. It risks\nour safety, it risks our security, and it risks our strategic\nindependence.\n  The Biden administration used its final days in office to grant\nCalifornia permission to export its EV mandate across the country. They\ndid this just 1 month before President Trump took office. They had\nalready lost the election. They already knew the American people\nrejected what they stood for. Yet they still tried to push this onto\nthe American people, and are trying to push it today.\n  This is midnight meddling. Senate Republicans are ready to use the\nCongressional Review Act to stop it. We will protect Americans'\nrights--the rights to purchase a gas-powered vehicle. That is what we\nare fighting for, and we have every right to do so.\n  California's mandates have already taken root in a dozen States. They\naffect 40 percent of all the new light-duty vehicle registrations and a\nquarter of the new heavy-duty vehicle registrations nationwide. They\nclearly affect the kinds of vehicles which will be manufactured and\nsold in America. These California mandates affect the cost and the\navailability of gas-powered cars and trucks all across the country,\neven in the States that do not adopt the mandates.\n  To my Democrat colleagues who will tolerate California controlling\nwhat Americans can drive: Do you think the American people really\nsupport what you are trying to shove down their throats? No, they\ndon't.\n  No wonder the Democrats lost the election.\n  Are the Democrats willing to strip consumers and small businesses of\ntheir right to choose the vehicles that work for their needs and for\ntheir budgets? Do Democrats want to continue to protect the failures\nand the fallacies of the Green New Deal? Or for once, will the\nDemocrats join Republicans who are trying to protect working families?\n  It is no surprise, then, that Republicans have become the party\nsupporting and protecting the rights of working families. People have\nrejected the Democrats.\n  The Senate also needs to reject the cheerleading by these climate\nextremists for more regulations by unelected bureaucrats, but that is\nwhat the Democrats are here supporting. The Senate should use the\nCongressional Review Act to reject this Joe Biden midnight madness. By\ndoing so, we would be protecting consumer choice, protecting\naffordability, and protecting congressional authority.\n  It is time to put Americans, Mr. President, back in the driver's\nseat.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.\n\n                        Nomination of Ed Martin\n\n  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Justice is a\npowerful Agency. The Attorney General heads it. Throughout the United\nStates, there are over 90 U.S. attorneys who are the Federal\nprosecutors--a powerful position, a position that can make or break an\nindividual or a corporation. Two of the most important and the most\npowerful are the Southern District of New York and the District of\nColumbia.\n  I come to the floor today to speak in opposition to the nomination of\nEd Martin to be U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. I urge my\ncolleagues, Democrats and Republicans: Closely examine this nominee's\nrecord.\n  Ed Martin's commentary and affiliations leave no doubt that he is\nunqualified to serve as the top Federal law enforcement individual for\nour Nation's Capital City. Nearly every day, new, disqualifying\ninformation surfaces.\n  Recently, ProPublica published a troubling report detailing Mr.\nMartin's conduct in multiple cases involving Eagle Forum, a\nconservative organization which has its roots in my home State of\nIllinois, formally led by well-known activist Phyllis Schlafly.\n  Within a year--within a year--of Mr. Martin becoming the head of the\nEagle Forum, the board of directors of that organization fired him, in\n2016, and they stated the reason: mismanagement and poor leadership.\n  A majority of the board also filed a lawsuit to bar him from any\nassociation with the organization. Instead of arguing his case in\ncourt, according to the ProPublica publication, Mr. Martin secretly\norchestrated a social media campaign attacking the presiding Illinois\njudge.\n  Ironically, that judge, John Barberis from Madison County, IL--\ndirectly across the river from St. Louis--was the only Republican judge\nsitting in that county at the time.\n  Mr. Martin went so far as to buy a laptop computer for a former\ncolleague so that she could attack the judge on Facebook and ghostwrote\nposts for her.\n  Mr. Martin, who seeks to be the top Federal prosecutor in the\nDistrict of Columbia, urged her to ``turn up the heat with others'' on\nthe Facebook page of this judge and to ``[c]all what [the judge] did\nunfair and rigged over and over'' again--Mr. Martin's instruction to\nhis colleague.\n  This outrageous effort to intimidate a judge is a clear violation of\nethical\n\n[[Page S2811]]\n\nnorms and professional rules of conduct. It led to more than $600,000\nin legal settlements or judgments against Mr. Martin or his employers.\n  In the Eagle Forum lawsuit, a judge held Mr. Martin in contempt of\ncourt, citing his ``willful disregard'' of a court order that barred\nhim from interfering with the organization.\n  Remember, this is the President's choice to be the head U.S. attorney\nfor the District of Columbia, and he is being held in contempt of court\nfor willful disregard of a court order that barred him from\ninterfering.\n  A jury found Mr. Martin liable for defamation of Phyllis Schlafly's\ndaughter, Anne Schlafly Cori--a jury decision finding him liable for\ndefamation--for, among other things--he shared a post on Facebook\nfalsely claiming--listen to this--Mr. Martin shared a Facebook post\nfalsely claiming that Anne Schlafly Cori should be charged with\nmanslaughter in her mother's death.\n  Mr. Martin also has a disturbing history of downplaying the January 6\ninsurrection in the U.S. Capitol. He has made it a habit to attack the\nlaw enforcement officers who protected the Vice President, who sat\nbefore this Chamber, Members of the Senate, Members of the House,\nthousands of staffers, and visitors.\n  Those law enforcement individuals put their lives on the line for me\nand for all of us, but Mr. Martin doesn't see it that way.\n  He was at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 when he posted on social\nmedia, and I quote word for word what he said on January 6 about what\nwas going on in this insurrection in the Capitol. Here is what he said:\n\n       Like Mardi Gras in DC today; love, faith, and joy. Ignore\n     #FakeNews.\n\n  In August 2023, he excused violence by January 6 rioters, saying:\n\n       We have to have less judgment on somebody who hits a cop.\n\n  Ed Martin, seeking the U.S. attorney's post for the District of\nColumbia, said of the January 6 rioters:\n\n       We have to have less judgment on somebody who hits a cop.\n\n  He continued:\n\n       I've seen people hit a cop and that doesn't make it the end\n     of the world.\n\n  Ed Martin, the top law enforcement officer in the District of\nColumbia--that is his quote.\n  He had the audacity to call Michael Fanone, a 20-year veteran of the\nMetropolitan Police Department who was nearly killed on January 6, ``a\nfake cop.''\n  ``[A] fake cop.''\n  This disgusting and dangerous rhetoric puts at greater risk officers\nwho already put their lives on the line every day to protect you and me\nand our families. This lack of respect for law enforcement is\ninconsistent with his goal to be the presiding U.S. attorney for the\nDistrict of Columbia.\n  According to Mr. Martin, January 6 rioters who beat the cops are\n``patriots''--his word; ``victims''--his word. He has also attacked\nprosecutors who were assigned to work on January 6 cases.\n  Incidentally, until he was selected for this position, he had never\nbeen a prosecutor. The top position in the U.S. Department of Justice\nin terms of U.S. attorneys--the District of Columbia--the man for the\njob never had any experience as a prosecutor.\n  He has also attacked the prosecutors who were assigned to work on\nJanuary 6 cases. What does he call those prosecutors? ``Terrorists.''\nHis word. He said:\n\n       I shun them. I ostracize them. . . . These are despicable\n     people.\n\n  Ed Martin.\n  Just as alarming, Mr. Martin has close ties to Timothy Hale-\nCusanelli, a January 6 rioter and Nazi sympathizer.\n  Look at this picture. In 2024 alone, Mr. Martin interviewed Mr. Hale-\nCusanelli at least five times. In one of these interviews, Mr. Martin\nsaid:\n\n       Tim Hale is an extraordinary guy. I have gotten to know him\n     really well. I'd say we're friends.\n  Friends with a Nazi sympathizer. This is who the President believes\nshould be the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.\n  Ed Martin now claims that despite these five interviews that we know\nof, he was not aware of Mr. Hale-Cusanelli's anti-Semitic commentary or\npenchant for donning a Hitler mustache until after he had presented him\npersonally with an award last July.\n  But Mr. Martin's own words demonstrate the opposite. Just weeks\nbefore this award ceremony, where Martin gives this man who dresses up\nas Hitler an award, Mr. Martin excused his dressing up as ``goofing\naround'' and claimed he is being ``smeared and slurred'' by allegations\nof anti-Semitism.\n  Documents filed in Mr. Hale-Cusanelli's criminal trial, he was a\nJanuary 6 rioter, show that he has a long history of saying horrifying\nthings. Let me give you one of Mr. Hale-Cusanelli's quotes, this man\nwho was referred to as an ``extraordinary leader'' by Ed Martin.\n  Here is what he said:\n\n       Hitler should have finished the job.\n\n  Hale-Cusanelli. He also claimed that he ``would kill''--this is so\ndisgusting. I hate to put it in the Record, but it has to be. He also\nclaimed he ``would kill all the Jews and eat them for breakfast, lunch,\nand dinner, and he wouldn't need to season them because the salt from\ntheir tears would make it flavorful enough.''\n  This is the person that Ed Martin, the would-be prosecuting attorney\nfor the District of Columbia, called ``an extraordinary man, an\nextraordinary leader.''\n  In a letter sent to the Judiciary Committee opposing Mr. Martin's\nnomination, 11 separate national Jewish organizations, representing\nmore than 1 million people, wrote that Mr. Martin's associations are\n``not only dangerous--they reveal a pattern of behavior incompatible\nwith the responsibilities of a US Attorney, a role meant to uphold\njustice and [to] protect all communities, including Jewish Americans,\nfrom hate and extremism.''\n  On top of all of this, Mr. Ed Martin has failed to disclose to the\nSenate an unprecedented number of required requests for information. Of\napproximately 2,200 writings and remarks that he was required to submit\nto the Senate Judiciary Committee, he omitted at least 700--over 30\npercent of his known record.\n  This includes his failure to disclose that he made nearly 150\nappearances on networks funded and directed by the Russian Government,\nand interviews on Infowars--do you remember the term ``Infowars''?--\nhosted by a man named Alex Jones, the rightwing conspiracy monger who\nfalsely claimed that the Sandy Hook massacre of those little kids was\nfalse.\n  Just yesterday, my Judiciary Committee discovered more than 300\nadditional items that Mr. Martin failed to provide to the committee.\nThis is the fifth time that Mr. Martin will be required to update his\ndisclosures to the committee. This nominee is treating the Senate's\nconstitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on his\nnomination with utter contempt.\n  Just to put this in context, omitting over 700 items, we discovered\n300 more that he failed to disclose, in the previous history of the\ncommittee--all the staff have looked closely--when it comes to\nomissions, Mr. Martin wins the trophy permanently. Why? Because the\nmost in any previous case before was fewer than 10, his is over 700\nfailures to disclose before the committee.\n  Mr. Ed Martin has his own history of making his own discriminatory\ncomments. He baselessly called his fellow panelists on CNN ``black\nracists,'' and he later claimed, with no evidence, Mr. Martin said,\n``[I] got fired because of the crazy Black ladies on CNN that demanded\nI be fired because I didn't take their nonsense.''\n  The fact that Ed Martin feels the need to note the race and gender of\nthe people who cross him speaks volumes about his character. And in a\nspeech that Martin did not disclose to the Judiciary Committee, we\ndiscovered he made the following statement:\n\n       You're not racist if you don't like Mexicans.\n\n  Just last year he said in an interview:\n\n       You show me a Jewish American--\n\n  Ed Martin said--\n\n       who feels good about the Democrat Administration, and I'll\n     show you someone who is not really Jewish.''\n\n  How dare Ed Martin pass judgment on someone else's religious faith?\n  The serious concerns about Ed Martin's nomination have only been\nheightened by his conduct as an interim U.S. attorney. One of his first\nofficial acts after his appointment was to\n\n[[Page S2812]]\n\nfire numerous prosecutors simply for handling the January 6 cases that\nwere assigned to them.\n  He has also baselessly threatened to investigate numerous nonprofit\norganizations, educational institutions, lawmakers, and others simply\nbecause he disagrees with them politically.\n  The top prosecutor in the Nation's Capital should be focused on\nfighting violent crime and terrorism, not threatening our First\nAmendment rights.\n  Mr. Martin's record makes it clear that he does not have the\ntemperament, the judgment, or the experience to be entrusted with the\npower and responsibility of being U.S. attorney for the District of\nColumbia.\n  I urge my Democratic and Republican colleagues to oppose his\nnomination.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Iowa.\n\n             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar\n\n  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to seek unanimous consent to\nconfirm Casey Mulligan, the President's nominee to be the chief counsel\nof the Office of Advocacy at the Small Business Administration.\n  I will make that motion in just a moment, but first, let me explain\nwhy I am doing this. This week is National Small Business Week, a week\nto recognize the achievements of our Nation's entrepreneurs.\n  As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have a front row seat to\nthe successes and challenges of our small business owners, and I have\nthe privilege of being a champion for Iowa entrepreneurs.\n  Our small businesses are more vulnerable to burdensome government\nregulations. Over the past few years, the cost of regulations for small\nbusinesses has been out of control. The previous administration created\nmore than 1,100 final rules costing $1.8 trillion. The Biden\nadministration's regulatory costs were 600 times higher than that of\nthe first Trump administration and 3.7 times higher than that of the\nObama administration.\n  I have been encouraged by President Trump's efforts to freeze and\nroll back regulations. SBA Administrator Loeffler and the White House\nare working hard to eliminate burdensome and unnecessary regulations,\nbut to be truly effective, small businesses need a Senate-confirmed\nchief counsel to continue this mission.\n  The Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy has been vacant, without a\nSenate-confirmed occupant for nearly a decade. This key role ensures\nsmall business interests are protected.\n  Having served as the top Republican on the Small Business Committee\nfor years now, I truly understand the need for this position to be\nfilled immediately, and we are fortunate that President Trump nominated\na highly qualified individual for this role.\n  Dr. Casey Mulligan's unique mix of academic success and real-world\nsmall business experience makes him the best candidate for the job. A\nHarvard graduate, Dr. Mulligan received his Ph.D. in economics from the\nUniversity of Chicago where he currently serves as an economics\nprofessor.\n  In addition to his academic role, Dr. Mulligan also owns two small\nconsulting and economic research businesses. He has also conducted\nextensive research on the economic effects of regulation on small\nbusinesses.\n  At the SBA Office of Advocacy, Dr. Mulligan would serve as a champion\nfor small businesses nationwide as the Agency undergoes much needed\nchanges to policy and direction.\n  Advocacy's role remains true regardless of party, to ensure that a\nstrong chief counsel stands up for the little guy and warns regulators\nwhen small firms will be harmed.\n  Dr. Mulligan understands Main Street and the importance of examining\nall costs imposed on America's entrepreneurs.\n  I urge my colleagues to consent to the confirmation of Dr. Mulligan\nas chief counsel of the Office of Advocacy at the SBA.\n  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session\nto consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 59; that the Senate\nvote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the\nmotion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and\nthat the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and\nthe Senate resume legislative session.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Mr. MARKEY. Reserving the right to object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.\n  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak on this motion to\nconfirm Casey Mulligan to be chief counsel of the Office of Advocacy.\n  In the last 3\\1/2\\ months, we have seen an unprecedented assault by\nthe Trump administration on America's small businesses.\n  Elon Musk and DOGE have taken a chain saw to SBA. They have done away\nwith 43 percent of its staff and an estimated 2,700 people, and I say\n``estimated'' because SBA won't share who has been fired and who has\nbeen retained with the public or with the U.S. Senate. We don't know.\n  We requested a meeting with DOGE in February and have yet to hear\nback. The little we do know about what DOGE is doing at SBA is gleaned\nthrough media reports rather than through their responses to our\ncongressional requests.\n  Because of this administration's utter contempt for accountability\nand its shameless lack of transparency, we don't know if SBA has\nsufficient staff on hand to carry out its day-to-day operations.\n  We don't know which congressionally authorized and funded programs\nhave been illegally shut down. We don't know which SBA field offices\nwill remain open to serve small business owners where they live and\nwork. And yet, the Senate Republicans want us to rubberstamp their\nslash-and-burn tactics and confirm this SBA nominee by unanimous\nconsent with a total disregard from the Trump administration to tell\nthe U.S. Senate what is going on inside of the SBA.\n  They have the SBA inside one big ``witness protection program.'' We\ncan't get them to tell us anything about anything.\n  And they want us to come out here by unanimous consent and to start\nto confirm appointees to the SBA to further dismantle programs that are\nessential to small businesses all across our country?\n  And let me say this: My Republicans do not see how the Trump\nadministration is turning Main Street into ``Pain Street,'' and it is\nin their home States. Small businesses are being forced to absorb\nskyrocketing costs because of President Trump's destructive tariffs.\nThey are terrified of losing customers, as consumer confidence levels\ntake a historic nosedive. They are listening with shock and disbelief.\n  Small businessmen and women across the country have to have their\nbottle of Pepto Bismol right next to them every single day, not knowing\nwhat the impact is going to be of the Trump tariffs on their small\nbusinesses across the country.\n  And by the way, there are 34 million of those small businesses right\nnow, and we have got a Small Business Administration that won't even\ntalk to the U.S. Senate, much less to those small business people who\nare terrified right now.\n  They, right now, are terrified. They are shocked, as President Trump\ntells American consumers that they are going to pay luxury prices to\nshop at mom-and-pop shops in the United States.\n  Does anyone in this administration understand the harm they are\ncausing to small businesses?\n  I can tell you at least one entity that does: the U.S. Chamber of\nCommerce.\n  Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called on the Trump\nadministration to develop a tariff exclusion process to prevent\nirreparable harm to small businesses and to stop the country from\nfalling into a recession. The U.S. Chamber is speaking on behalf of\nchambers of commerce all across this country--every city and town. They\nare speaking for them. They are saying: Protect small businesses from\nthe Trump tariffs.\n  That is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That is what we should be\ndebating out here on the floor right now--a bill to protect all small\nbusinesses from the Trump tariffs.\n  Instead, we are talking about confirming someone who absolutely\nshould\n\n[[Page S2813]]\n\nnot be debated on the Senate floor at this time, because those little\nbusinesses don't have the protections that big companies with big\nmargins have. They are very, very vulnerable, and Casey Mulligan, the\nnominee for Chief Counsel for Advocacy, has actually questioned the\nvalue of longstanding and widely expected worker protections, including\nsick leave and paid healthcare and the right to unionize. And, not\nsurprisingly, not a single Democrat on the Small Business Committee\nvoted to advance his nomination.\n  So this is not the right time, and he is not the right person to have\nthis job. Confirming Dr. Mulligan will only further President Trump's\nradical, damaging attack on small businesses and their workers.\n  And with that, I object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.\n\n                              S.J. Res. 7\n\n  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to today's\nresolution to overturn an FCC rule that provides greater flexibility to\nensure that every student has the access to the internet that they\nneed.\n  We have known for a long time that internet access is critical for\neducation. Students need Wi-Fi to connect with classmates and teachers,\nwork on group projects, do research, and even just hit the ``submit''\nbutton on some assignments. Yet too many Americans can't access\nreliable internet at home. It is called the ``homework gap,'' and it is\nleaving thousands of kids behind.\n  This disparity only worsened during the pandemic, when the homework\ngap became a full learning gap for thousands of students. Many kids\nwithout internet at home had to sit in McDonald's parking lots so they\ncould Zoom into class. As part of the American Rescue Plan, I worked\nwith my colleague from Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey and former FCC\nChairwoman Rosenworcel to launch the Emergency Educational Connectivity\nFund, or ECF. This $7 billion program provided nearly 18 million\nstudents at over 10,000 schools and libraries with hotspots, routers,\nand other equipment for students and educators to connect to the\ninternet at home. Maryland schools and libraries received over $145\nmillion through this program to help bridge the homework gap in my\nState.\n  Even as we worked to provide support for students on an emergency\nbasis, we worked with the FCC on modernization of the E-Rate program to\nensure it meets student needs. The new FCC rule allows schools and\nlibraries to loan out Wi-Fi hotspots to students and educators at home\nso we can continue to address the homework gap. But now, the\nRepublicans want to repeal this commonsense reform and take away\nhotspots from low-income and rural families.\n  This is a backwards step at a time when access to the internet is\nmore important than ever. And because the new rule simply allowed the\nuse of existing E-Rate funds more flexibly, the repeal of this rule\ndoes not save a dime. A vote to repeal this rule is a vote to limit the\nFCC's ability to address a critical need for students and to put a stop\nto good work being done by schools and libraries to support learning.\nThis was an issue before the pandemic and remains an issue today.\n  We all know that access to the internet is essential. We have worked\non a bipartisan basis to expand broadband access, but we have a long\nway to go. The FCC modernized E-Rate to ensure that students are not\ndisadvantaged by lack of access to broadband at home, whether that is\nbecause they are in a rural area with no connection or because it is\nunaffordable for their parents. This is a commonsense measure, and I\nurge my colleagues to vote against its repeal today.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.\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. 7\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the\nthird time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?\n  Ms. HASSAN. 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 Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch),\nand the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).\n  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez\nMasto), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from\nPennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego),\nthe Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from\nConnecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla),\nthe Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from\nMinnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.\n  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 38, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--50\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hagerty\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Husted\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Justice\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moody\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Rounds\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Young\n\n                                NAYS--38\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Durbin\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Slotkin\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                             NOT VOTING--12\n\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Klobuchar\n     Lummis\n     Murphy\n     Padilla\n     Risch\n     Shaheen\n     Smith\n     Wicker\n  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7) was passed as follows:\n\n                              S.J. Res. 7\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 Federal Communications\n     Commission relating to ``Addressing the Homework Gap Through\n     the E-Rate Program'' (89 Fed. Reg. 67303 (August 20, 2024)),\n     and such rule shall have no force or effect.\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-2025-05-08-pt1-PgS2808"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.5303400103002787, "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"}