[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 129 (Tuesday, August 2, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3841-S3842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Cryptocurrency

  Madam President, it was February when I was watching the Super Bowl 
with my family at home. I noticed something that was odd. There was 
LeBron James on TV. In a commercial, he tells a younger version of 
himself: ``If you want to make history, you gotta call your own 
shots.'' He was promoting crypto.com, a cryptocurrency exchange based 
in Singapore.
  Soon after, one of my favorite comedians appeared on the screen, 
Larry David. His ad had a similar note. He warned viewers not to ``miss 
out on crypto.'' That ad was sponsored by a different crypto exchange 
that was headquartered in the Bahamas.
  I saw these ads and thought to myself, What is going on here? This is 
a football game. Both companies were just a few years old, and 30-
second ads cost millions of dollars--$7 million, I understand. I can't 
imagine enlisting LeBron James and Larry David for that purpose. So how 
exactly can these exchanges that most Americans have never heard of 
afford to shell out tens of millions of dollars on Super Bowl ads? 
Better yet, why?
  Last week, National Public Radio ran a story that helped answer my 
question. You see, these crypto companies weren't simply promoting 
their products; they were trying to create a veneer of credibility. 
These Super Bowl ads were high-stakes attempts to convince hard-working 
Americans into investing in a volatile, unwieldy, and poorly regulated 
asset class called cryptocurrency. Unfortunately, it seems to be 
working.
  Let me tell you about Michelle Milkowski. She lives in Washington 
State. She watched the same ads I did during the Super Bowl. She shared 
her story with National Public Radio. When Michelle saw celebrities 
promoting crypto products, she said it convinced her that ``[it's] not 
just scammers [that] are using [them]. . . . [I] felt safe . . . to put 
my money in there.'' So how did Michelle's crypto investment pan out? 
Well, 3 months after the Super Bowl, she was down $8,000. She was 
another victim of the crypto market meltdown that began in May.
  For the record, in the course of 24 hours, more than $200 billion of 
value in the crypto industry vanished. And, just last week, the 
industry lost more than 5 percent of its value--again, in 1 day.

  These rapid losses convinced Michelle to cash out. How does she feel 
about her crypto experience today? She said:

       There's definitely peace that comes with . . . selling off 
     such a volatile asset . . . I don't have to worry [every day] 
     am I losing . . . [another] thousand dollars . . .

  Michelle was lucky she was able to wash her hands and cut her losses, 
but, Madam President, for the majority of Americans who cannot afford 
even a $1,000 emergency, losing $8,000 in 3 months is a disaster. That 
is the difference between paying your rent and living on the street.
  Look, if you are a retail investor with money to invest and you want 
to try your hand at the crypto casino, by all means, grab your chips 
and head to the tables--within reason. But when we are talking about an 
industry that has reached more than a trillion dollars in value, that 
has shed hundreds of billions of dollars in the past few months, it is 
time for caution.
  As I mentioned, cryptocurrencies--even the most well-known like 
Bitcoin--are poorly regulated, if they are regulated at all. And 
Bitcoin has seen wild swings. Bitcoin has lost roughly two-thirds of 
its value since

[[Page S3842]]

last November. The cost of one Bitcoin fell from $68,000 to under 
$21,000.
  And these assets are not only volatile, they are virtually 
untraceable. Compare that to an investment like a share of stock--and, 
yes, there is risk in the stock market--or an exchange-traded fund. If 
you are a retail investor and you buy a couple hundred dollars' worth 
of shares in a company, you know you are assuming some risk. That is 
the nature of investment.
  But here is the difference. When you buy a stock, under the law, you 
can find out important information about the company: How many products 
are they selling? How much are they paying their executives? What risk 
does the company foresee?
  You have significantly more information and transparency about where 
your investment is going. Many ETFs even disclose their holdings every 
day. After all, they have to. They are required by law. They are 
regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  With cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, there is no such transparency. 
They are decentralized, illiquid, and highly speculative. Where are the 
disclosures? Where are the consumer protections? In many cases, there 
are none. Instead of encouraging working families to risk their hard-
earned cash into remarkably unstable investments, let's pump the brakes 
on the rocket to the Moon.
  Last Tuesday, I sent a letter, along with my colleagues Senators 
Warren and Smith, to Fidelity Investments. They are one of the biggest 
401(k) providers in the world. In April, they made a decision that 
surprised me and, frankly, concerned me. Fidelity says they will soon 
allow 401(k) plan sponsors to offer plan participants exposure to 
Bitcoin.

  Here is the issue. A 401(k) account is a nest egg. It is a vehicle 
that tens of millions of Americans rely on so that, many years from 
now, they can retire in dignity. And during this period of economic 
uncertainty, I can't think of any reason to expose retirement savers to 
new risk.
  As we all saw on Super Bowl Sunday--whether it is Matt Damon, LeBron 
James, or Larry David--there is no shortage of options for people who 
want to invest in crypto. But retirement accounts must be held to a 
higher standard, and my hope is that Fidelity will live up to its name 
and meet that standard by reversing this decision.
  It is also important to recognize that, even if you don't invest in a 
single cryptocurrency, we all have a stake in this industry. Why? 
Because the process for the so-called mining of these digital assets 
consumes jaw-dropping amounts of energy. As of May, according to the 
Public Broadcasting System:

       The world's . . . Bitcoin mining operations had an annual 
     energy budget nearly equal to the entire country of Argentina 
     . . . or all the tea kettles in England boiling water for 26 
     years.

  And seven of the largest Bitcoin mining companies consume enough 
energy alone to power every single home in Houston. That is just 
Bitcoin. That calculation doesn't even account for the fossil fuels 
being burned to produce other coins, like Dogecoin.
  When companies like Fidelity and celebrities like Larry David are 
hawking an asset class that is unstable, untraceable, and pumping 
untold tons of carbon into our atmosphere, we should all have the good 
sense to step back and wrap our heads around this trillion-dollar 
industry that is not even old enough today to drive a car.
  Madam President, I have been in several meetings with my colleagues 
on this cryptocurrency. I am by no means an expert. I have tried to 
learn as much as I can, but it is an extremely complicated operation. I 
will tell you this. I fear that we will do something but not enough. I 
fear that just a limited amount of regulation by the Federal Government 
may convince people that we really have a grip on what is happening in 
this industry. There is risk associated with it that is major.
  I have had some well-known and very successful individuals in my 
office, and I have asked them--they have made millions of dollars--What 
about crypto? Most of them have said: I wouldn't touch it.
  Yet we have got to tell the American people, when it is advertised, 
when it is available, you have got to be careful--particularly when it 
comes to people with limited assets, people with an adverse situation 
when it comes to risk, and people who are putting, literally, their 
savings and their retirement on the line on these investments.
  That is why I joined my colleagues in writing to Fidelity and asking 
them to rationalize how this can be part of any 401(k) plan. We owe it 
to the American people to provide them the protection in this industry, 
as we have in so many other areas of investment. It is fundamental, it 
is fair, and it is the only way to guarantee them that they have some 
grip on making investments that could be in their best interest and 
might not be as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 3373

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have some good news. The minority 
leader and I have come to an agreement to vote on the PACT Act this 
evening. There will be 3 amendment votes, a 60-vote margin on the 
Toomey amendment, on the Paul amendment, and on the Blackburn 
amendment, and then 60 votes for the bill. I am very optimistic that 
this bill will pass, so our veterans across America can breathe a sigh 
of relief.
  The treatments that they deserve and have needed but have been denied 
by the VA because of all kinds of legal barriers and presumptions will 
now be gone. Veterans who were exposed to the toxic fumes of burn pits 
will be treated by the VA like they should have been from the very 
beginning.
  So this is good news. It took us a while to get here, but I am 
grateful for the bipartisan cooperation and support that will allow us 
to move forward today.
  And a little bit more good news: The fact that we can finish PACT 
today gives us a real opportunity to do the treaties that will allow 
Finland and Sweden to join NATO. And that can happen tomorrow if we can 
come to a time agreement. I am very hopeful that that can happen as 
well.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. today the 
Senate proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of the 
House message to accompany S. 3373, with the time until 5 p.m. equally 
divided; further, that it be in order to consider and vote in relation 
to a Paul motion to concur with amendment No. 5184, a Toomey motion to 
concur with amendment No. 5186, and a Blackburn motion to concur with 
amendment No. 5185; that at 5 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the 
motions in the order listed; that following disposition of the motions 
to concur with amendments numbered 5184, 5186, and 5185, the motion to 
refer and the amendments pending thereto and the motion to concur with 
amendment No. 5148 and the amendment pending thereto be withdrawn and 
the Senate vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 
3373; that the Paul, Toomey, and Blackburn motions and the motion to 
concur be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold, with 2 minutes 
for debate, equally divided, prior to each vote; and that all votes 
after the first vote be 10-minute votes; all without intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.